Politics-evidence conflict in national health policy making in Africa: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Generally, public health policy-making is hardly a linear process and is characterized by interactions among politicians, institutions, researchers, technocrats and practitioners from diverse fields, as well as brokers, interest groups, financiers and a gamut of other actors. Meanwhile, most public health policies and systems in Africa appear to be built loosely on technical and scientific evidence, but with high political systems and ideologies. While studies on national health policies in Africa are growing, there seems to be inadequate evidence mapping on common themes and concepts across existing literature. PURPOSE: The study seeks to explore the extent and type of evidence that exist on the conflict between politics and scientific evidence in the national health policy-making processes in Africa. METHODS: A thorough literature search was done in PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Dimensions, Taylor and Francis, Chicago Journals, Emerald Insight, JSTOR and Google Scholar. In total, 43 peer-reviewed articles were eligible and used for this review. RESULT: We found that the conflicts to evidence usage in policy-making include competing interests and lack of commitment; global policy goals, interest/influence, power imbalance and funding, morals; and evidence-based approaches, self-sufficiency, collaboration among actors, policy priorities and existing structures. Barriers to the health policy process include fragmentation among actors, poor advocacy, lack of clarity on the agenda, inadequate evidence, inadequate consultation and corruption. The impact of the politics-evidence conflict includes policy agenda abrogation, suboptimal policy development success and policy implementation inadequacies. CONCLUSIONS: We report that political interests in most cases influence policy-makers and other stakeholders to prioritize financial gains over the use of research evidence to policy goals and targets. This situation has the tendency for inadequate health policies with poor implementation gaps. Addressing these issues requires incorporating relevant evidence into health policies, making strong leadership, effective governance and a commitment to public health.

Navigating resistance in global health governance: Certification of smallpox eradication in China.

Certification is an essential stage in disease eradication efforts, encompassing epidemiological, managerial, and political complexities. The certification of smallpox eradication in the People's Republic of China (PRC, or China) exemplifies the multifaceted nature of the certification. Despite eradicating smallpox in the early 1960s, before the Global Smallpox Eradication Programme (SEP) intensified in 1967, China was one of the last countries certified as smallpox-free by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1979. The WHO encountered notable resistance during the certification of smallpox eradication in China. This article examines the underlying motivations propelling China's resistance, the factors that contributed to the shifts in its stance, the challenges navigated by the WHO, and the ultimate achievement of certification despite controversies surrounding its transparency and credibility. Through the case of the certification of smallpox eradication, the article provides a historical context of China's selective engagement in global health governance, emphasising the critical importance of building a trusting relationship between the WHO and its member states. It offers insights for fostering effective collaboration among diverse stakeholders driven by varied political agendas in addressing shared global health challenges such as the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.

The politics of classification: Discursive tensions in the Danish political debate on trans identity and diagnosis in the years 2007-2016.

In 2017, the Danish Parliament reclassified the diagnosis used for gender-affirming treatment, officially removing it from the list of psychiatric disorders. This paper examines how trans identity was negotiated and constructed in the political debate during the years leading up to this reclassification. Through the lens of political discourse analysis, it explores how two conflicting discourses emerged in opposition to each other, out of which a liberal rights approach to trans identity gained legitimacy throughout the period in question. We argue that although the two discourses offer different problematizations of trans identity, they both entail a gender essentialist framework.

Politics and the Public Health Workforce: Lessons Suggested from a Five-State Study.

Policy Points The United States public health system relies on an inadequate and inefficient mix of federal, state, and local funding. Various state-based initiatives suggest that a promising path to bipartisan support for increased public health funding is to gain the support of local elected officials by providing state (and federal) funding directly to local health departments, albeit with performance strings attached. Even with more funding, we will not solve the nation's public health workforce crisis until we make public health a more attractive career path with fewer bureaucratic barriers to entry. CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the shortcomings of the United States public health system. High on the list is a public health workforce that is understaffed, underpaid, and undervalued. To rebuild that workforce, the American Rescue Plan (ARP) appropriated $7.66 billion to help create 100,000 new public health jobs. As part of this initiative, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) distributed roughly $2 billion to state, local, tribal, and territorial health agencies for use between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2023. At the same time, several states have enacted (or are considering enacting) initiatives to increase state funding for their local health departments with the goal of ensuring that these departments can deliver a core set of services to all residents. The differences in approach between this first round of ARP funding and theseparate state initiatives offer an opportunity to compare, contrast, and suggest lessons learned. METHODS: After interviewing leaders at the CDC and other experts on the nation's public health workforce, we visited five states (Kentucky, Indiana, Mississippi, New York, and Washington) to examine, by means of interviews and documents, the implementation and impact of both the ARP workforce funds as well as the state-based initiatives. FINDINGS: Three themes emerged. First, states are not spending the CDC workforce funding in a timely fashion; although the specifics vary, there are several organizational, political, and bureaucratic obstacles. Second, the state-based initiatives follow different political paths but rely on the same overarching strategy: gain the support of local elected officials by providing funding directly to local health departments, albeit with performance strings attached. These state initiatives offer their federal counterparts a political roadmap toward a more robust model of public health funding. Third, even with increased funding, we will not meet the nation's public health workforce challenges until we make public health a more attractive career path (with higher pay, improved working conditions, and more training and promotion opportunities) with fewer bureaucratic barriers to entry (most importantly, with less reliance on outdated civil service rules). CONCLUSION: The politics of public health requires a closer look at the role played by county commissioners, mayors, and other local elected officials. We need a political strategy to persuade these officials that their constituents will benefit from a better public health system.

Politics and Policies of Health Systems: Reflections on 50 Years of Observing Protests, Leaders, and Political Analysis.

This commentary presents reflections on my work over the past five decades related to the politics and policies of health systems from various perspectives. The essay is based on a plenary lecture at the Seventh Global Symposium on Health Systems Research in Bogotá, Colombia, in November 2022. The commentary examines a central concern in many of my writings-and a persistent challenge for people working to improve public health: How can the powerless influence policy? Using examples drawn from my past writings, I discuss three broad themes related to this question: the role of social protest movements, the impact of political leadership, and the relevance of political analysis. These reflections are offered in the hope of expanding the use of applied political analysis in public health, and thus contributing to improved health and health equity in the world.

Financing health promotion, prevention and innovation despite the rising healthcare costs: How can the new German government square the circle?

The German health system is under pressure due to increasing costs of healthcare provision and rising demand for health services. With the new coalition government, Germany has increased efforts to build a modern, innovative infrastructure for prevention and high-quality health services. The coalition agreement has a strong climate, innovation, and sustainability focus, reflecting at the same time the ambition of the new government to implement a preventive, inter-connected, and modern healthcare system in Germany. However, the agreement lacks detailed information on the achievement of the plans, especially concerning the question of how those measures should be funded in light of increasing expenditures for healthcare. Thus, the objectives of this study are to interpret the new government's plans and answer the question of how Germany in the new legislative period can ensure and fund population-based prevention programmes, health-promoting measures and innovative solutions despite the rising healthcare costs. By analysing the relevant content of the coalition agreement and drawing on an expert workshop, this paper suggests the establishment of a prevention fund and flexible remuneration model for digitalised and innovative forms of care in the new legislative period. Our findings may help identify feasible approaches to sustainable financing of health promotion, prevention and innovation in the German healthcare system.

A comparative analysis of non-invasive prenatal testing in Ontario and Quebec: the role of governing style in health technology innovation & adoption.

BACKGROUND: While processes of adoption and the impacts of various health technologies have been extensively studied by health services and policy researchers, the influence of policy makers' governing styles on these processes have been largely neglected. Through a comparative analysis of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec, this article examines how decisions about this technology were shaped by contrasting political ideologies, resulting in vastly different innovation and adoption strategies and outcomes. METHODS: A comparative qualitative investigation comprising of a document analysis followed by semi-structured interviews with key informants. Interview participants were researchers, clinicians, and private sector medical laboratory employees based in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. Interviews were conducted both in person and virtually- owing partly to the COVID-19 pandemic - to garner perspectives regarding the adoption and innovation processes surrounding non-invasive prenatal testing in both provinces. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Through an analysis of 21 in-depth interview transcripts and key documents, the research team identified three central themes: 1) health officials in each province demonstrated a unique approach to using the existing scholarly literature on NIPT; 2) each provincial government demonstrated its own preference for service delivery, with Ontario preferring private and Quebec preferring public; and finally, 3) both Ontario and Quebec's strategies to NIPT adoption and innovation was contextualized within each province's unique financial positioning and concerns. These findings illustrate how both Quebec's nationalist focus and use of industrial policy and Ontario's 'New Public Management' style had implications for how this emerging healthcare technology was made available within each province's publicly-financed health system. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals how these governments' differing approaches to using data and research, public versus private service delivery, and financial goals and concerns resulted in distinct testing technologies, access, and timelines for NIPT adoption. Our analysis demonstrates the need for health policy researchers, policy makers, and others to move beyond analyses solely considering clinical and health economic evidence to understand the impact of political ideologies and governing styles.

Along party Lines: Examining the gubernatorial party difference in COVID-19 mortality rates in U.S. Counties.

Drawing upon the literatures on risk factors for COVID-19 and the roles of political party and political partisanship in COVID-19 policies and outcomes, this study quantifies the extent to which differences in Republican- and Democrat-governed counties' observable characteristics explain the Republican - Democrat gap in COVID-19 mortality rate in the United States. We analyze the county COVID-19 mortality rate between February 1 and December 31, 2020 and employ the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method. We estimate the extent to which differences in county characteristics - demographic, socioeconomic, employment, health status, healthcare access, area geography, and Republican vote share, explain the difference in COVID-19 mortality rates in counties governed by Republican vs Democrat governors. Among 3,114 counties, Republican-governed counties had significantly higher COVID-19 mortality than did Democrat-governed counties (127 ± 86 vs 97 ± 80 per 100,000 population, p < 0.001). Results are sensitive to which weights are used: of the total gap of 30.3 deaths per 100,000 population, 12.8 to 20.5 deaths, or 42.2-67.7 %, are explained by differences in observable characteristics of Republican- and Democratic-governed counties. Difference in support for President Trump between Republican- and Democrat-governed counties explains 25 % of the additional deaths in Republican counties. Policies aimed at improving population health and lowering racial disparity in COVID-19 outcomes may also be correlated with reducing the partisan gap in COVID-19 mortality.

How do you solve a problem like Maria? The politics of disaster response in Puerto Rico, Florida and Texas.

COVID-19 is not the first, nor the last, public health challenge the US political system has faced. Understanding drivers of governmental responses to public health emergencies is important for policy decision-making, planning, health and social outcomes, and advocacy. We use federal political disaster-aid debates to examine political factors related to variations in outcomes for Puerto Rico, Texas, and Florida after the 2017 hurricane season. Despite the comparable need and unprecedented mortality, Puerto Rico received delayed and substantially less aid. We find bipartisan participation in floor debates over aid to Texas and Florida, but primarily Democrat participation for Puerto Rican aid. Yet, deliberation and participation in the debates were strongly influenced by whether a state or district was at risk of natural disasters. Nearly one-third of all states did not participate in any aid debate. States' local disaster risk levels and political parties' attachments to different racial and ethnic groups may help explain Congressional public health disaster response failures. These lessons are of increasing importance in the face of growing collective action problems around the climate crisis and subsequent emergent threats from natural disasters.

Politicized disease surveillance: A theoretical lens for understanding sociopolitical influence on the monitoring of disease epidemics.

Sociopolitical forces commonly influence the collection, analysis, dissemination, and general perceptions of epidemiological information. Yet few theoretical lenses provide insight into the mechanisms through which such influence occurs. In this article, I draw and expand upon empirical findings to propose a novel theoretical lens, politicized disease surveillance, which I define as extreme or undue sociopolitical influence on public health surveillance systems or processes in ways that impact disease incidences and prevalences, or estimates or perceptions thereof. This lens foregrounds disease incidence and prevalence as objects of contestation and policy influence and articulates how certain facets of sociopolitical forces shape disease incidences and prevalences-especially amid an epidemic-through one or more channels: (1) the diagnostic construct; (2) screening tools, procedures, or systems; or (3) the behaviors of individuals who are living with or at risk for a certain disease. I provide several contemporary illustrations of politicized disease surveillance and discuss its theoretical and practical implications.

How information about race-based health disparities affects policy preferences: Evidence from a survey experiment about the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

In this article, we report on the results of an experimental study to estimate the effects of delivering information about racial disparities in COVID-19-related death rates. On the one hand, we find that such information led to increased perception of risk among those Black respondents who lacked prior knowledge; and to increased support for a more concerted public health response among those White respondents who expressed favorable views towards Blacks at baseline. On the other hand, for Whites with colder views towards Blacks, the informational treatment had the opposite effect: it led to decreased risk perception and to lower levels of support for an aggressive response. Our findings highlight that well-intentioned public health campaigns spotlighting disparities might have adverse side effects and those ought to be considered as part of a broader strategy. The study contributes to a larger scholarly literature on the challenges of making and implementing social policy in racially-divided societies.

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.

Commentary: Global Comparisons of Physician Associations.

The authors reflect on their own work in relation to the articles in this special section on physician organizations, and they make four observations. First, association-government power relations shift after countries introduce universal health insurance, but they are by no means diminished. In France, Germany, and Japan, physicians' economic interests are explicitly considered against broader health system goals, such as providing affordable universal insurance. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), physician organizations do not share power in the same way. Second, in higher-income countries, fragmentation may occur along specialty or generalist lines, and some physicians are unionized. Generally speaking, physician influence over reimbursement policy is reduced because of organizational fragmentation. Third, associations develop as legitimate voices for physicians, but their relationship to other professions differs in higher-income countries. Associations in LMICs form coalitions with other health professionals. Finally, although German state physician associations have a key implementation role, in most countries, state and federal policy roles seem relatively defined. Global comparison of the LMICs and other countries suggests power, unity, legitimacy, and federal roles are tied closely to the stage of health system development.

What Doctors Want: A Comment on the Financial Preferences of Organized Medicine.

Organized medicine's persistent demand for high payments is one factor that contributes to the rising costs of health care. The profession's long-standing preference for private and fee-for-service practice has pressured payers to increase reimbursement rates in fee-based systems; and it has stalled, thwarted, or otherwise co-opted attempts to contain costs in other payment systems. Yet what doctors want in fact varies. This article revisits classic comparative studies of organized medicine in advanced democracies to highlight two underemphasized findings: (1) physicians' financial preferences can deviate from traditional expectations, and (2) the structure of the organizations that represent doctors can shape whether and how those preferences are expressed. These findings remain relevant today as a discussion of contemporary American health politics illustrates.

Correlates of benzodiazepine dependence in patients with depression followed up in a psychiatric outpatient unit in Tunisia.

Benzodiazepines may be prescribed to manage anxiety and insomnia in patients with depression. However, as noticed during our daily practice, a considerable proportion of patients treated for depression and receiving benzodiazepines developed a dependence to these medicines. Our aims were to estimate the proportion of patients with depression who develop a benzodiazepine dependence and to identify its correlates. We conducted a comparative study in Razi Hospital's outpatient psychiatry unit (Tunisia). We included patients aged 18 to 65 years who were diagnosed with depression during the first three quarters of 2014. Included patients were prescribed benzodiazepines. Follow-up period was of 2 years. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify dependence-associated factors. We included 54 patients, and 52% developed a benzodiazepine dependence during the follow-up period. Two associated factors were identified: a daily mean benzodiazepine dose of more than 9.5 milligrams of diazepam equivalents prior to taper off (p = .001) and a benzodiazepine taper-off initiated after the fifth week of benzodiazepine intake onset (p = .007). The proportion of patients who developed a benzodiazepine dependence was high. Low doses and time-limited benzodiazepine prescription should be taken into consideration when managing patients with depression in order to prevent dependence.

Infectious disease, public health, and politics: United States response to Ebola and Zika.

Politics, rather than disease characteristics, complicated the United States response to Ebola virus disease and Zika virus. We analyze how media and political elites shaped public opinion of the two outbreaks. We conducted a retrospective analysis of media coverage, Congressional floor speech, and public opinion polls to explain elite cueing and public perceptions of Ebola and Zika. We find evidence of elite cueing by Congress and the media on public opinion. Public opinion of both disease outbreaks initially followed partisan patterns. However, while Ebola public opinion remained partisan, ultimately, opinion emerged of a bipartisan nature for Zika, mirroring elite framing. Public health officials should be aware of how elite cueing shapes policy and prioritizes partisan strategies. Politics and public opinion can focus attention on or away from infectious disease; it can also undermine public health responses by biasing the public's view of a diseases' relative risk.

The comparative politics of COVID-19: The need to understand government responses.

COVID-19 has created a ramifying public health, economic, and political crisis throughout many countries in the world. While globally the pandemic is at different stages and far from under control in some countries, now is the time for public health researchers and political scientists to start understanding how and why governments responded the way they have, explore how effective these responses appear to be, and what lessons we can draw about effective public health policymaking in preparation of the next wave of COVID-19 or the next infectious disease pandemic. We argue that there will be no way to understand the different responses to COVID-19 and their effects without understanding policy and politics. We propose four key focuses to understand the reasons for COVID-19 responses: social policies to crisis management as well as recovery, regime type (democracy or autocracy), formal political institutions (federalism, presidentialism), and state capacity (control over health care systems and public administration). A research agenda to address the COVID-19 pandemic that takes politics as a serious focus can enable the development of more realistic, sustainable interventions in policies and shape our broader understanding of the politics of public health.

[Homeopathy: insubstantial doctrine of salvation]. / Homöopathie: Heilslehre "ohne Substanz".

Homeopathy is one of the frequently used alternative healing methods in Germany. This article is intended to discuss and analyze why homeopathy should not be part of medicine and should rather be understood as a concept of belief that lies outside of scientific methods. The clinical, legal, and political dimensions of the homeopathy debate are explained. Finally, the question of the legitimacy of placebo applications is discussed in light of the demand for patient-centered medicine.

Normalising abortion: what role can health professionals play?

BACKGROUND: Despite being a common gynaecological procedure, abortion continues to be widely stigmatised. The research and medical communities are increasingly considering ways of reducing stigma, and health professionals have a role to play in normalising abortion as part of routine sexual and reproductive healthcare (SRH). We sought to investigate how health professionals may normalise abortion and challenge prevailing negative sociocultural narratives. METHODS: As part of the Sexuality and Abortion Stigma Study (SASS), qualitative secondary analysis was conducted on two datasets containing health professionals' accounts of providing abortion in Scotland and England. A subsample of 20 interviews were subjected to in-depth, thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified in heath professionals' accounts: (1) encountering resistance to abortion from others working in SRH; (2) contending with prevailing negative sociocultural narratives of abortion; (3) enacting overt positivity towards abortion provision; and (4) presenting abortion as part of normal, routine healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that negative attitudes toward abortion persist both inside and outside of healthcare systems, and need to be challenged in order to destigmatise those accessing and providing services. Health professionals can play a key role in normalising abortion, through the ways in which they frame their work and present abortion to women they treat, and others more widely. Our analysis suggests a key way to achieve this is by presenting abortion as part of normal, routine SRH, but that appropriate support and structural change are essential for normalisation to become embedded.