How public health crises expose systemic, day-to-day health inequalities in low- and-middle income countries: an example from East Africa.

BACKGROUND: The current Coronavirus disease pandemic reveals political and structural inequities of the world's poorest people who have little or no access to health care and yet the largest burdens of poor health. This is in parallel to a more persistent but silent global health crisis, antimicrobial resistance (AMR). We explore the fundamental challenges of health care in humans and animals in relation to AMR in Tanzania. METHODS: We conducted 57 individual interviews and focus groups with providers and patients in high, middle and lower tier health care facilities and communities across three regions of Tanzania between April 2019 and February 2020. We covered topics from health infrastructure and prescribing practices to health communication and patient experiences. RESULTS: Three interconnected themes emerged about systemic issues impacting health. First, there are challenges around infrastructure and availability of vital resources such as healthcare staff and supplies. Second, health outcomes are predicated on patient and provider access to services as well as social determinants of health. Third, health communication is critical in defining trusted sources of information, and narratives of blame emerge around health outcomes with the onus of responsibility for action falling on individuals. CONCLUSION: Entanglements between infrastructure, access and communication exist while constraints in the health system lead to poor health outcomes even in 'normal' circumstances. These are likely to be relevant across the globe and highly topical for addressing pressing global health challenges. Redressing structural health inequities can better equip countries and their citizens to not only face pandemics but also day-to-day health challenges.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Advocacy Curricula in U.S. Medical Schools.

PURPOSE: Recent national events, including the COVID-19 pandemic and protests of racial inequities, have drawn attention to the role of physicians in advocating for improvements in the social, economic, and political factors that affect health. Characterizing the current state of advocacy training in U.S. medical schools may help set expectations for physician advocacy and predict future curricular needs. METHOD: Using the member school directory provided by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the authors compiled a list of 154 MD-granting medical schools in the United States in 2019-2020. They used multiple search strategies to identify online course catalogues and advocacy-related curricula using variations of the terms "advocacy," "policy," "equity," and "social determinants of health." They used an iterative process to generate a preliminary coding schema and to code all course descriptions, conducting content analysis to describe the structure of courses and topics covered. RESULTS: Of 134 medical schools with any online course catalogue available, 103 (76.9%) offered at least 1 advocacy course. Required courses were typically survey courses focused on general content in health policy, population health, or public health/epidemiology, whereas elective courses were more likely to focus specifically on advocacy skills building and to feature field experiences. Of 352 advocacy-specific courses, 93 (26.4%) concentrated on a specific population (e.g., children or persons with low socioeconomic status). Few courses (n = 8) focused on racial/ethnic minorities and racial inequities. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that while most U.S. medical schools offer at least 1 advocacy course, the majority are elective rather than required, and the structure and content of advocacy-related courses vary substantially. Given the urgency to address social, economic, and political factors affecting health and health equity, this study provides an important and timely overview of the prevalence and content of advocacy curricula at U.S. medical schools.

Antiracist Praxis in Public Health: A Call for Ethical Reflections.

The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed myriad social, economic, and health inequities that disproportionately burden populations that have been made medically or socially vulnerable. Inspired by state and local governments that declared racism a public health crisis or emergency, the Anti-Racism in Public Health Act of 2020 reflects a shifting paradigm in which racism is considered a social determinant of health. Indeed, health inequities fundamentally rooted in structural racism have been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, which calls for the integration of antiracist praxis to promote ethical public health research processes. This commentary describes ways in which antiracist praxis-which emphasizes empowerment of traditionally marginalized populations-offers strategies to explicitly address power imbalance, stigmatization, and other consequences of structural racism in public health research.

No body is expendable: Medical rationing and disability justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The health threat posed by the novel coronavirus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic has particular implications for people with disabilities, including vulnerability to exposure and complications, and concerns about the role of ableism in access to treatment and medical rationing decisions. Shortages of necessary medical equipment to treat COVID-19 have prompted triage guidelines outlining the ways in which lifesaving equipment, such as mechanical ventilators and intensive care unit beds, may need to be rationed among affected individuals. In this article, we explore the realities of medical rationing, and various approaches to triage and prioritization. We discuss the psychology of ableism, perceptions about quality of life, social determinants of health, and how attitudes toward disability can affect rationing decisions and access to care. In addition to the grassroots advocacy and activism undertaken by the disability community, psychology is rich in its contributions to the role of attitudes, prejudice, and discriminatory behavior on the social fabric of society. We call on psychologists to advocate for social justice in pandemic preparedness, promote disability justice in health care settings, call for transparency and accountability in rationing approaches, and support policy changes for macro- and microallocation strategies to proactively reduce the need for rationing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).