This question was at the heart of the first Medical Humanities-Global Health Glossary Workshop, held on 9 June 2026 and jointly convened by TORCH Medical Humanities and Oxford Global Health.
The workshop series was established in recognition of a challenge familiar to anyone working across disciplines: we often use the same terms, but not always with the same meanings. Concepts such as equity, vulnerability, justice, solidarity and decolonisation are widely used in global health, yet they often carry different meanings, assumptions and histories depending on disciplinary perspective.
The aim of the Global Health Glossary is not to impose a single definition of these terms. Rather, it seeks to create a space for interdisciplinary dialogue around key concepts in global health.
Equity was a natural place to begin. It is one of the most frequently invoked concepts in global health research, policy and practice, yet also one of the most contested. The discussion revealed that while participants often used the same term, they were not always referring to the same thing.
What counts as a public good?
Dr Lovro Savić reflected on how equity is often understood in public health through the lens of health inequities – unfair and unjust differences in health outcomes – and what it means to improve health at the level of populations rather than individuals.
This perspective highlighted a broader question: how do we define benefit in public health, and who gets to determine what counts as a public good?
The discussion also raised the question of whether equity should be understood primarily in relation to individuals, or whether it can be applied more meaningfully at the level of populations and communities.
Who benefits?
Drawing on examples from malaria control, Prof Ann Kelly explored how interventions can shape who is protected, who remains vulnerable and what forms of expertise become visible.
Equity, in this sense, is not only about distributing resources fairly. It also depends on how health problems are defined, whose experiences are recognised, who benefits from interventions and which solutions are prioritised.
Through examples of malaria prevention, the discussion explored how interventions designed to address immediate risks can leave the underlying conditions that produce vulnerability untouched.
Audience discussion extended this point, raising questions about why some issues attract global attention and investment while others remain neglected, and how those priorities come to be established in the first place. Equity, participants suggested, is shaped not only by how resources are distributed, but also by how health challenges are identified, prioritised and measured.
Reparation or transformation?
Prof Caesar Atuire posed a fundamental question: should equity be understood primarily as a reparative project or as a transformative one?
Using the example of malaria prevention, he noted that interventions such as bed nets can only benefit those who have beds in the first place. If equity means ensuring access to bed nets, should it also mean asking why some people lack the conditions to benefit from them?
This shifted the discussion from questions of access and distribution to the structures that produce inequity in the first place. The audience discussion added another dimension to this question, suggesting that equity may be concerned not only with addressing past injustices, but also with shaping more equitable futures.
Towards a shared vocabulary
The workshop did not seek to arrive at a definitive definition of equity. Instead, it revealed just how many different assumptions can sit beneath a single term.
At the same time, some areas of common ground began to emerge. Participants repeatedly returned to the importance of lived experience, structural determinants, power and context. Equity was framed not simply as an outcome to be measured, but as an ongoing process.
Audience discussion raised further questions. Is every remediable difference an inequity, or are some inequalities more important than others?
Participants also reflected on the distinction between equity and equality, noting that while equality is often understood as treating everyone the same, equity requires attention to different needs, circumstances and starting points.
If the discussion demonstrated anything, it was that equity is not a concept that can be taken for granted. The same word can carry different meanings, priorities and implications depending on disciplinary perspective. Meaningful disagreement depends on some shared understanding of the concepts under discussion.
One aim of the Medical Humanities-Global Health Glossary is to make both shared understandings and points of difference more visible.
This discussion will inform the first entry in the developing glossary.
The glossary is being developed by Alberto Giubilini and Caesar Atuire. Those interested in contributing to future discussions or glossary entries are encouraged to contact: alberto.giubilini@uehiro.ox.ac.uk