E, current efforts to address chronic diseases in LMICs are indubitably limited by the very delineation of NCDs themselves. This, in turn, draws attention to the ways in which the global health enterprise is so often enacted RP54476 manufacturer within a number of specific and siloed realms, with little structural capacity to deal with the implications of the complex porosity of definitional categories. For example, `the boundaries between communicable and non-communicable diseases are often indistinct’ (Farmer et al., 2013, p. 321). So, it could be argued that, with the development of antiretroviral therapies, AIDS has become a chronic disease that can be managed through RG7666 web life-long drug regimens and changes in one’s lifestyle. Similarly, some have argued that cervical cancer, a current priority of the global health community, is more akin to a communicable disease given that it is triggered by the sexually-transmitted Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) and is now preventable through a vaccine (Livingston, 2012). There are, moreover, similar boundary problems with mental health issues like depression that are excluded from the official NCD definition but yet seem to fit the notion of a disease that has a lasting impact on someone’s capacity to function in society (WHO, 2010). The notion of NCD also partakes in the `mistake of pitting one set of pathologies against another’ for attention and funding from the global health community, instead of promoting an approach to public health policy and practice that is intersectoral and holistic (Farmer et al., 2013, p.322). Interestingly, this division and fragmentation is also encouraged by the focus on discrete, cost-effective health interventions developed by the World Bank at the end of the 20th century and taken over by the WHO and others over the last 15 years. Another issue relates to the capacity of the state to provide adequate care for its citizens and, moreover, the consequences of this for the sustainability of global health programmes (Marmot et al., 2008). Failure in this domain is both deflected and reinforced by the lack of focus on the social determinants of NCDs and the role of mounting inequalities in entrenching these. Moreover, theD. Reubi et al. / Health Place 39 (2016) 179?twin phenomena of globalisation (Beaglehole and Yach, 2003; Yach and Beaglehole, 2004) and rapid urbanisation (Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 2012; WHO/UN-HABITAT, 2009) have unsettled the assumptions inherent within the epidemiological transition model. Now, households are gripped not just by the `double burden’ of disease (Bygbjerg, 2012), but in some cases, a `triple’ or even `quadruple burden’ that also includes injuries and violence, as well as perinatal and maternal diseases (Bradshaw et al., 2003). Crucially, the characteristics of these burdens vary not just between countries, but also within them and at ever-finer geographic scales. Even within one household, for example, there might be underweight, malnourished family members living alongside equally malnourished obese relatives (Doak et al., 2004). It is important then to consider the social determinants of this complicated and multi-layered disease burden: poverty, inequality, quality of housing, access to sanitation, unemployment, education, transport, food security, the nature of healthcare provision and environmental degradation. It is these structural, economic, political and social drivers that largely condition the dynamics of the four main risk factors for chronic dis.E, current efforts to address chronic diseases in LMICs are indubitably limited by the very delineation of NCDs themselves. This, in turn, draws attention to the ways in which the global health enterprise is so often enacted within a number of specific and siloed realms, with little structural capacity to deal with the implications of the complex porosity of definitional categories. For example, `the boundaries between communicable and non-communicable diseases are often indistinct’ (Farmer et al., 2013, p. 321). So, it could be argued that, with the development of antiretroviral therapies, AIDS has become a chronic disease that can be managed through life-long drug regimens and changes in one’s lifestyle. Similarly, some have argued that cervical cancer, a current priority of the global health community, is more akin to a communicable disease given that it is triggered by the sexually-transmitted Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) and is now preventable through a vaccine (Livingston, 2012). There are, moreover, similar boundary problems with mental health issues like depression that are excluded from the official NCD definition but yet seem to fit the notion of a disease that has a lasting impact on someone’s capacity to function in society (WHO, 2010). The notion of NCD also partakes in the `mistake of pitting one set of pathologies against another’ for attention and funding from the global health community, instead of promoting an approach to public health policy and practice that is intersectoral and holistic (Farmer et al., 2013, p.322). Interestingly, this division and fragmentation is also encouraged by the focus on discrete, cost-effective health interventions developed by the World Bank at the end of the 20th century and taken over by the WHO and others over the last 15 years. Another issue relates to the capacity of the state to provide adequate care for its citizens and, moreover, the consequences of this for the sustainability of global health programmes (Marmot et al., 2008). Failure in this domain is both deflected and reinforced by the lack of focus on the social determinants of NCDs and the role of mounting inequalities in entrenching these. Moreover, theD. Reubi et al. / Health Place 39 (2016) 179?twin phenomena of globalisation (Beaglehole and Yach, 2003; Yach and Beaglehole, 2004) and rapid urbanisation (Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 2012; WHO/UN-HABITAT, 2009) have unsettled the assumptions inherent within the epidemiological transition model. Now, households are gripped not just by the `double burden’ of disease (Bygbjerg, 2012), but in some cases, a `triple’ or even `quadruple burden’ that also includes injuries and violence, as well as perinatal and maternal diseases (Bradshaw et al., 2003). Crucially, the characteristics of these burdens vary not just between countries, but also within them and at ever-finer geographic scales. Even within one household, for example, there might be underweight, malnourished family members living alongside equally malnourished obese relatives (Doak et al., 2004). It is important then to consider the social determinants of this complicated and multi-layered disease burden: poverty, inequality, quality of housing, access to sanitation, unemployment, education, transport, food security, the nature of healthcare provision and environmental degradation. It is these structural, economic, political and social drivers that largely condition the dynamics of the four main risk factors for chronic dis.