Political economy analysis of subnational health management in Kenya, Malawi and Uganda.

The need to bolster primary health care (PHC) to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets for health is well recognized. In Eastern and Southern Africa, where governments have progressively decentralized health decision-making, health management is critical to PHC performance. While investments in health management capacity are important, so is improving the environment in which managers operate. Governance arrangements, management systems and power dynamics of actors can have a significant influence on health managers' ability to improve PHC access and quality. We conducted a problem-driven political economy analysis (PEA) in Kenya, Malawi and Uganda to explore local decision-making environments and how they affect management and governance practices for health. This PEA used document review and key informant interviews (N = 112) with government actors, development partners and civil societies in three districts or counties in each country (N = 9). We found that while decentralization should improve PHC by supporting better decisions in line with local priorities from community input, it has been accompanied by thick bureaucracy, path-dependent and underfunded budgets that result in trade-offs and unfulfilled plans, management support systems that are less aligned to local priorities, weak accountability between local government and development partners, uneven community engagement and insufficient public administration capacity to negotiate these challenges. Emergent findings suggest that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) not only resulted in greater pressures on health teams and budgets but also improved relations with central government related to better communication and flexible funding, offering some lessons. Without addressing the disconnection between the vision for decentralization and the reality of health managers mired in unhelpful processes and politics, delivering on PHC and universal health coverage goals and the SDG agenda will remain out of reach.

Understanding the "Sometimes Masker": Political Orientation and Trust in the Media During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States has brought to light the problematic way partisan politics interferes with public health prevention and control measures. This study aims to investigate how Americans responded to the novel coronavirus with respect to their sociopolitical identity and masking habits. STUDY DESIGN: This mixed-methods study incorporated three ethnographic projects and surveys together, from two rural areas (in Iowa and California) and one suburban community in California. METHODS: We interviewed 156 Americans about how masking habits related to six themes: participants' perceived risk level, concern for themselves and others, support for President Trump, trust in scientific organizations, and confidence in major news outlets. We conducted content analysis of qualitative interviews and evaluated survey questions to understand how and why people masked or engaged in public health prevention practices. RESULTS: Greater perceived risk, concern for others, and trust in health and media institutions was correlated with increased masking, while support for Trump was predictive of anti-masking sentiments. Participants who diverged from these trends, specifically those who sometimes wore masks, but not always were called "sometimes maskers". These sometimes maskers often identified as politically moderate and were more likely to mask due to concern for a vulnerable person or group in their lives. CONCLUSIONS: Since one in three Americans are political moderates, understanding what promotes their adherence to public health guidelines is essential for policy makers interested in pandemic containment. Relatedly, the conservative tendency to distrust mainstream media is what separated those who reported sometimes masking from those who reported always masking.

On symbols and scripts: The politics of the American COVID-19 response.

The COVID-19 crisis emerged during a divisive time in American politics. We argue that to unravel the American COVID-19 crisis-and to craft effective responses-we need a more sophisticated understanding of the political culture of public health crises. We use data from interviews and online media to examine symbolic representation of public health phenomena (masks; public health institutions) within the first months of the US epidemic. We show how political scripts about pandemic responses are shaped by, and align with, deeply-rooted social values and political cultures. Social processes of meaning-making help explain the evolution of increasingly partisan public health discourse regarding topics like masking and institutional trust. We highlight the lack of memorialization of deaths in America-that has not acquired the same polarized political meaning as other issues-to consider how and why certain issues gain political valence, and what opportunities certain acts of politicization provide in shifting public discourse. The coronavirus pandemic challenged the science of public health strategy, and the legitimacy of its institutions, with devastating consequences. Anticipating and understanding the central role of political cultures, cultural scripts, and meanings in positioning public health measures is essential for more effective responses to COVID-19 and future pandemics.

A spectrum of (Dis)Belief: Coronavirus frames in a rural midwestern town in the United States.

Community responses to the SARS-CoV-2, or "coronavirus" outbreaks of 2020 reveal a great deal about society. In the absence of government mandates, debates over issues such as mask mandates and social distancing activated conflicting moral beliefs, dividing communities. Policy scholars argue that such controversies represent fundamental frame conflicts, which arise from incommensurable worldviews, such as contested notions of "liberty" versus "equity". This article investigates frames people constructed to make sense of coronavirus and how this affected social behavior in 2020. We conducted an interpretive framing analysis using ethnographic data from a predominately white, conservative, and rural midwestern tourist town in the United States from June to August 2020. We collected semi-structured interviews with 87 community members, observed meetings, events, and daily life. We identified four frames that individuals constructed to make sense of coronavirus: Concern, Crisis, Constraint, and Conspiracy. Concern frames illustrated how some individuals are uniquely affected and thus protect themselves. Crisis frames recognized coronavirus as a pervasive and profound threat requiring unprecedented action. Constraint frames emphasized the coronavirus response as a threat to financial stability and personal growth that should be resisted. Conspiracy frames denied its biological basis and did not compel action. These four conflicting frames demonstrate how social fragmentation, based on conflicting values, led to an incomplete pandemic response in the absence of government mandates at the national, state, and local levels in rural America. These findings provide a social rationale for public health mandates, such as masking, school/business closures, and social distancing, when contested beliefs impede collective action.