The authors begin by explaining how Racism, xenophobia, and

discrimination are key determinants of health and equity and must be

addressed for improved health outcomes.

After having done their research, the authors have concluded that deeper
transformative action is needed compared with current measures.

To challenge the structural drivers of racism and xenophobia, the authors

suggest that anti-racist action that target determinants should implement an
intersectional approach.

Bola et al. claim that Structurally, legal instruments and human rights law
seem to provide a robust framework to challenge the pervasive drivers of
disadvantage linked to ethnicity, race, religion, and skin colour.

However, the authors urge that actions need to consider the historical,
economic, and political contexts in which the effects of racism, xenophobia,
and discrimination affect health.

Therefore, The authors have proposed several specific actions, one of which

Decolonization.

Decolonization must be adopted to challenge the societal structures that we

live in to create a fairer society.

Decolonization is a process of active efforts that recognise, examine, and

undo the legacies of colonialism, across all domains of society, including the
social and political frameworks

These changes cannot be done without challenging the ingrained colonial

ideas that persist today.
Perhaps the most challenging aspect of decolonisation is the pervasive
nature of ideas around the so-called other, generated by centuries of injustice
against minoritised groups.

Colonial ideas underpin the current social construction of race, ensuring

ideas of Black inferiority and white supremacy.

Interrogating colonial ideas is the route to decolonising the understanding of

inequality, and the powers that drove those ideas in the first instance.

For example, most authors of this paper are beneficiaries and a part of the
institutions that have created existing, unequal global health systems with
either training or employment.

Truly attempting to change these systems and health inequalities will require
wealthy societies to rethink existing frameworks of knowledge creation and
structures in global health, challenging the very concept of global health.

The evidence collected in the paper clearly shows a bias towards some types
of discrimination and interventions.

First, the study’s quality seems poor.

Robust intervention design allows for a deeper understanding of possible

health and social effects and facilitates effective cross-research comparisons.

Quantitative studies that are done need to be of an adequate sample size.

Many of the studies reviewed were small and underpowered.

Evaluations of interventions seeking to directly improve health often did not

measure hard health outcomes and did not include a control group.

Evaluations of interventions to promote anti-racist attitudes and behaviors

often relied on convenience samples of undergraduates.
In parallel with the poor quality of the study, the engagement also seems
lacking.

Minoritised poopulations need to be central to the research process with

sustained dialogue and engagement.

This might include co-creation and design and conducting research.

Minoritised populations must be included as participants in health research,

especially those who may respond differently to treatments and
interventions.