Health equity and distributive justice: views of high-level African policymakers.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Michelle Amri, Borgar Jølstad, Jesse B Bump
{"title":"Health equity and distributive justice: views of high-level African policymakers.","authors":"Michelle Amri, Borgar Jølstad, Jesse B Bump","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01154-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Health equity matters, but there is no universally accepted definition of this or associated terms, such as inequities, inequalities, and disparities. Given the flexibility of these terms, investigating how policymakers understand them is important to observe priorities and perhaps course correct. Accordingly, this study analyzed the perceptions high-level policymakers within the WHO African Region. An online survey was distributed to attendees of the WHO's Fifth Health Sector Directors' Policy and Planning Meeting for the WHO African Region by email. After responses were collected, both inductive and deductive coding were applied. Inductive coding was undertaken to glean central concepts from free-form responses on understandings of health equity and deductive coding was used to assess alignment with four theories of distributive justice using a coding framework. In analyzing central concepts, three became apparent: access to health services and/or health care, financial protection, and recognizing subgroups. And when we investigated alignment with theory, most respondents' understandings of health equity aligned with Rawls' 'Theory of Justice' (95%). Of these responses, 70% were exclusively aligned with Rawls' 'Theory of Justice' and 30% aligned also with another theory (this 30% was split 55% utilitarianism and 45% Sen's Capabilities Approach). Respondent understandings of health equity showed limited alignment with other theories of distributive justice, which were: utilitarianism (n = 7/39; 17.95%), Sen's Capabilities Approach (n = 5/39; 12.82%), and libertarianism (n = 2/39; 5.13%). Our study demonstrates that alignment with certain theories is tied to specific themes (i.e., theoretical underpinnings may guide policymakers to favour certain policy approaches). For instance, a utilitarian-minded policymaker may be focused on a widespread vaccination campaign, whereas a Rawlsian-aligned policymaker may focus on a targeted approach to reach communities that have lower vaccination rates, and a Senian-aligned policymaker may focus on health literacy programs targeted at addressing vaccine-hesitant individuals within communities with lower vaccination rates. These findings can guide high-level policymakers and international organizations to optimize decision-making by clarifying ethical alternatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"25 1","pages":"151"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11665058/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01154-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Health equity matters, but there is no universally accepted definition of this or associated terms, such as inequities, inequalities, and disparities. Given the flexibility of these terms, investigating how policymakers understand them is important to observe priorities and perhaps course correct. Accordingly, this study analyzed the perceptions high-level policymakers within the WHO African Region. An online survey was distributed to attendees of the WHO's Fifth Health Sector Directors' Policy and Planning Meeting for the WHO African Region by email. After responses were collected, both inductive and deductive coding were applied. Inductive coding was undertaken to glean central concepts from free-form responses on understandings of health equity and deductive coding was used to assess alignment with four theories of distributive justice using a coding framework. In analyzing central concepts, three became apparent: access to health services and/or health care, financial protection, and recognizing subgroups. And when we investigated alignment with theory, most respondents' understandings of health equity aligned with Rawls' 'Theory of Justice' (95%). Of these responses, 70% were exclusively aligned with Rawls' 'Theory of Justice' and 30% aligned also with another theory (this 30% was split 55% utilitarianism and 45% Sen's Capabilities Approach). Respondent understandings of health equity showed limited alignment with other theories of distributive justice, which were: utilitarianism (n = 7/39; 17.95%), Sen's Capabilities Approach (n = 5/39; 12.82%), and libertarianism (n = 2/39; 5.13%). Our study demonstrates that alignment with certain theories is tied to specific themes (i.e., theoretical underpinnings may guide policymakers to favour certain policy approaches). For instance, a utilitarian-minded policymaker may be focused on a widespread vaccination campaign, whereas a Rawlsian-aligned policymaker may focus on a targeted approach to reach communities that have lower vaccination rates, and a Senian-aligned policymaker may focus on health literacy programs targeted at addressing vaccine-hesitant individuals within communities with lower vaccination rates. These findings can guide high-level policymakers and international organizations to optimize decision-making by clarifying ethical alternatives.

卫生公平和分配正义:非洲高层决策者的观点。
卫生公平很重要,但对于卫生公平或相关术语,如不公平、不平等和差距,尚无普遍接受的定义。鉴于这些术语的灵活性,调查政策制定者是如何理解它们的,这对于观察优先事项、或许纠正方向非常重要。因此,本研究分析了世卫组织非洲区域高层决策者的看法。通过电子邮件向世卫组织非洲区域第五次卫生部门主任政策和规划会议的与会者分发了一份在线调查。收集应答后,采用归纳编码和演绎编码。采用归纳编码从对卫生公平理解的自由形式回答中收集中心概念,采用演绎编码使用编码框架评估与四种分配正义理论的一致性。在分析核心概念时,有三个概念显而易见:获得卫生服务和/或卫生保健、财务保护和识别子群体。当我们调查与理论的一致性时,大多数受访者对卫生公平的理解与罗尔斯的“正义理论”一致(95%)。在这些回答中,70%的人完全赞同罗尔斯的“正义理论”,30%的人也赞同另一种理论(这30%的人分成了55%的功利主义和45%的森的能力方法)。被调查者对卫生公平的理解与其他分配正义理论的一致性有限,这些理论是:功利主义(n = 7/39;17.95%), Sen能力法(n = 5/39;12.82%)和自由意志主义(n = 2/39;5.13%)。我们的研究表明,与某些理论的一致性与特定主题有关(即,理论基础可能指导政策制定者支持某些政策方法)。例如,功利主义政策制定者可能会关注广泛的疫苗接种运动,而罗尔斯主义政策制定者可能会关注有针对性的方法,以达到疫苗接种率较低的社区,而老年政策制定者可能会关注健康素养计划,以解决疫苗接种率较低的社区中对疫苗犹豫不决的个人。这些发现可以指导高层决策者和国际组织通过澄清伦理选择来优化决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信