The human right to health, inclusion and essential health care packages in low income countries: “health for all” in Malawi

IF 1.2 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
J. Grugel, S. Masefield, A. Msosa
{"title":"The human right to health, inclusion and essential health care packages in low income countries: “health for all” in Malawi","authors":"J. Grugel, S. Masefield, A. Msosa","doi":"10.1108/ijhrh-09-2021-0178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nHealth in low-income countries has become associated with the provision of minimum guaranteed public health services though Essential Health Packages (EHPs). How far do EHPs deliver the human right to health for all? This study addresses this question through qualitative research into access to health care for vulnerable communities, using Malawi as a case study. This study shows that there are significant accountability gaps and perceptions of weak service provision in Malawi’s EHP in relation to some particularly marginalised (and stigmatised) groups that limit the right to health and the promise of “health for all”.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study extends the body of qualitative work on EHPs in general and on Malawi in particular by exploring the perceptions of key stakeholders in relation to inclusivity and the delivery of health policies to particularly vulnerable groups. To do so, this study adopted an approach based on interpretive epistemologies (Scott, 2014). This study conducted largely unstructured interviews with a range of health stakeholders, speaking to stakeholders individually, rather than through focus groups due to the potentially sensitive nature of the topic.\n\n\nFindings\nThe findings of this study are as follows: limited inclusion of civil society actors and local communities; local communities and local policymakers feel frustration with the gap between the promises of consultation in the EHP and the reality, and the difficulties of not having effective channels of communication; and exclusionary health practices for particularly vulnerable groups.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThere are limitations based on the qualitative methodology, and in terms of the particularly vulnerable groups – the authors studied two such groups (people with disabilities and those who identify as LBTQ) but a wider survey of vulnerable groups is needed to extend and confirm the findings.\n\n\nPractical implications\nGreater attention to the health rights of vulnerable groups would improve access and services, even in the context of resource restrictions. This study suggests that a deeper engagement with human rights-based approaches would pay dividends in terms of increasing access to health in Malawi, even within the constraints of the EHP process. Furthermore, without this, there is the risk that discrimination and exclusion will become more embedded in health policies, rather than progressively minimised.\n\n\nSocial implications\nWithout addressing these issues, there is the risk that discrimination and exclusion will become more embedded in health policies, rather than progressively minimised.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper makes an important contribution to the growing literatures on EHP in sub-Saharan Africa and Malawi in particular and to the importance of listening to stakeholder perceptions. It provides original data on stakeholder perspectives of the challenges associated with universalising health care in resource-constrained countries. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is one of the first papers to focus on the rights of disabled and LBTQ people in relation to EHPs.\n","PeriodicalId":14129,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhrh-09-2021-0178","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Health in low-income countries has become associated with the provision of minimum guaranteed public health services though Essential Health Packages (EHPs). How far do EHPs deliver the human right to health for all? This study addresses this question through qualitative research into access to health care for vulnerable communities, using Malawi as a case study. This study shows that there are significant accountability gaps and perceptions of weak service provision in Malawi’s EHP in relation to some particularly marginalised (and stigmatised) groups that limit the right to health and the promise of “health for all”. Design/methodology/approach This study extends the body of qualitative work on EHPs in general and on Malawi in particular by exploring the perceptions of key stakeholders in relation to inclusivity and the delivery of health policies to particularly vulnerable groups. To do so, this study adopted an approach based on interpretive epistemologies (Scott, 2014). This study conducted largely unstructured interviews with a range of health stakeholders, speaking to stakeholders individually, rather than through focus groups due to the potentially sensitive nature of the topic. Findings The findings of this study are as follows: limited inclusion of civil society actors and local communities; local communities and local policymakers feel frustration with the gap between the promises of consultation in the EHP and the reality, and the difficulties of not having effective channels of communication; and exclusionary health practices for particularly vulnerable groups. Research limitations/implications There are limitations based on the qualitative methodology, and in terms of the particularly vulnerable groups – the authors studied two such groups (people with disabilities and those who identify as LBTQ) but a wider survey of vulnerable groups is needed to extend and confirm the findings. Practical implications Greater attention to the health rights of vulnerable groups would improve access and services, even in the context of resource restrictions. This study suggests that a deeper engagement with human rights-based approaches would pay dividends in terms of increasing access to health in Malawi, even within the constraints of the EHP process. Furthermore, without this, there is the risk that discrimination and exclusion will become more embedded in health policies, rather than progressively minimised. Social implications Without addressing these issues, there is the risk that discrimination and exclusion will become more embedded in health policies, rather than progressively minimised. Originality/value This paper makes an important contribution to the growing literatures on EHP in sub-Saharan Africa and Malawi in particular and to the importance of listening to stakeholder perceptions. It provides original data on stakeholder perspectives of the challenges associated with universalising health care in resource-constrained countries. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is one of the first papers to focus on the rights of disabled and LBTQ people in relation to EHPs.
低收入国家的健康、包容和基本医疗保健的人权:马拉维的“全民健康”
目的:低收入国家的保健已与通过基本保健一揽子计划提供最低保障的公共保健服务联系在一起。卫生保健项目在多大程度上实现了人人享有健康的人权?本研究以马拉维为个案,通过对弱势社区获得卫生保健的机会进行定性研究,解决了这个问题。这项研究表明,马拉维的全民健康计划中存在重大的问责差距和服务提供薄弱的看法,涉及到一些特别边缘化(和污名化)的群体,这些群体限制了健康权和“人人享有健康”的承诺。设计/方法/方法本研究通过探索主要利益攸关方对包容性和向特别脆弱群体提供卫生政策的看法,扩展了一般的、特别是马拉维的环境卫生项目定性工作。为此,本研究采用了一种基于解释认识论的方法(Scott, 2014)。由于该主题的潜在敏感性,本研究对一系列健康利益攸关方进行了大量非结构化访谈,与利益攸关方单独交谈,而不是通过焦点小组。本研究的发现如下:民间社会行为者和地方社区的参与有限;当地社区和地方决策者对EHP的协商承诺与现实之间的差距感到沮丧,并且缺乏有效的沟通渠道;以及针对弱势群体的排他性卫生做法。研究的局限性/启示基于定性方法的局限性,在特别脆弱的群体方面——作者研究了两个这样的群体(残疾人和那些自认为是LBTQ的人),但需要对脆弱群体进行更广泛的调查来扩展和证实这些发现。实际影响更多地关注弱势群体的健康权将改善获得服务的机会,即使在资源限制的情况下也是如此。这项研究表明,更深入地采用基于人权的方法,即使在环境健康计划进程的限制下,也会在增加马拉维获得保健服务方面产生好处。此外,如果不这样做,歧视和排斥就有可能更加深入地融入卫生政策,而不是逐步减少。如果不解决这些问题,就有可能使歧视和排斥更加深入到卫生政策中,而不是逐步减少。原创性/价值本文对撒哈拉以南非洲和马拉维的EHP文献的增长以及倾听利益相关者看法的重要性做出了重要贡献。它提供了有关利益攸关方对在资源有限的国家普及卫生保健所面临挑战的看法的原始数据。据作者所知,这是第一批关注残疾人和LBTQ人群在EHPs方面的权利的论文之一。
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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: nternational Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare (IJHRH) is an international, peer reviewed journal with a unique practical approach to promoting race equality, inclusion and human rights in health and social care. The journal publishes scholarly and double blind peer-reviewed papers of the highest standard, including case studies and book reviews. IJHRH aims include: -To explore what is currently known about discrimination and disadvantage with a particular focus on health and social care -Push the barriers of the human rights discourse by identifying new avenues for healthcare practice and policy internationally -Create bridges between policymakers, practitioners and researchers -Identify and understand the social determinants of health equity and practical interventions to overcome barriers at national and international levels. The journal welcomes papers which use varied approaches, including discussion of theory, comparative studies, systematic evaluation of interventions, analysis of qualitative data and study of health and social care institutions and the political process. Papers published in IJHRH: -Clearly demonstrate the implications of the research -Provide evidence-rich information -Provoke reflection and support critical analysis of both challenges and strengths -Share examples of best practice and ‘what works’, including user perspectives IJHRH is a hugely valuable source of information for researchers, academics, students, practitioners, managers, policy-makers, commissioning bodies, social workers, psychologists, nurses, voluntary sector workers, service users and carers internationally.
×
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