南非双边卫生协定:所涉问题分析。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Johanna Hanefeld, Moeketsi Modisenyane, Jo Vearey, Neil Lunt, Richard Smith, Helen Walls
{"title":"南非双边卫生协定:所涉问题分析。","authors":"Johanna Hanefeld, Moeketsi Modisenyane, Jo Vearey, Neil Lunt, Richard Smith, Helen Walls","doi":"10.1093/heapol/czae038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The bilateral agreements signed between South Africa and countries in Southern and Eastern Africa are a rare example of efforts to regulate health-related issues in a world region. As far as we know, there are no comparable bilateral health governance mechanisms in regions elsewhere. Furthermore, the rapidly growing literature on global health governance and governance for global health has to date not addressed the issue of patient mobility and how to govern it. In this study, we examine the issues included in these agreements, highlight key issues that they address, identify areas of omission and provide recommendations for improvement. This analysis should inform the development of such governance agreements both in Southern Africa and in regions elsewhere. We obtained 13 bilateral health agreements between South Africa and 11 neighbouring African countries as part of a broader research project examining the impact on health systems of patient mobility in South Africa, and thematically analysed their content and the governance mechanisms described. The agreements appear to be solidarity mechanisms between neighbouring countries. They contain considerable content on health diplomacy, with little on health governance, management and delivery. Nonetheless, given what they do and do not address, and how, they provide a rare insight into mechanisms of global health diplomacy and attempts to address patient mobility and other health-related issues in practice. The agreements appear to be global health diplomacy mechanisms expressing solidarity, emerging from a post-apartheid period, but with little detail of issues covered, and a range of important issues not addressed. Further empirical work is required to understand what these documents mean, particularly in the Covid-19 context, and to understand challenges with their implementation. The documents also raise the need for particular study of bilateral flows and experience of patients and health workers, and how this relates to health system strengthening.</p>","PeriodicalId":12926,"journal":{"name":"Health policy and planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11308612/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bilateral health agreements of South Africa: an analysis of issues covered.\",\"authors\":\"Johanna Hanefeld, Moeketsi Modisenyane, Jo Vearey, Neil Lunt, Richard Smith, Helen Walls\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/heapol/czae038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The bilateral agreements signed between South Africa and countries in Southern and Eastern Africa are a rare example of efforts to regulate health-related issues in a world region. As far as we know, there are no comparable bilateral health governance mechanisms in regions elsewhere. Furthermore, the rapidly growing literature on global health governance and governance for global health has to date not addressed the issue of patient mobility and how to govern it. In this study, we examine the issues included in these agreements, highlight key issues that they address, identify areas of omission and provide recommendations for improvement. This analysis should inform the development of such governance agreements both in Southern Africa and in regions elsewhere. We obtained 13 bilateral health agreements between South Africa and 11 neighbouring African countries as part of a broader research project examining the impact on health systems of patient mobility in South Africa, and thematically analysed their content and the governance mechanisms described. The agreements appear to be solidarity mechanisms between neighbouring countries. They contain considerable content on health diplomacy, with little on health governance, management and delivery. Nonetheless, given what they do and do not address, and how, they provide a rare insight into mechanisms of global health diplomacy and attempts to address patient mobility and other health-related issues in practice. The agreements appear to be global health diplomacy mechanisms expressing solidarity, emerging from a post-apartheid period, but with little detail of issues covered, and a range of important issues not addressed. Further empirical work is required to understand what these documents mean, particularly in the Covid-19 context, and to understand challenges with their implementation. The documents also raise the need for particular study of bilateral flows and experience of patients and health workers, and how this relates to health system strengthening.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health policy and planning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11308612/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health policy and planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czae038\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health policy and planning","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czae038","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

南非与南部非洲和东部非洲国家签署的双边协定是努力管理一个地区卫生相关问题的罕见范例。据我们所知,其他地区还没有类似的双边卫生治理机制。此外,有关全球卫生治理和全球卫生治理的文献迅速增加,但迄今为止,这些文献尚未涉及病人流动性问题以及如何治理这一问题。在本研究中,我们对这些协议中包含的问题进行了研究,并强调了这些协议所涉及的关键问题,找出了其中的疏漏之处,并提出了改进建议。这项分析将为南部非洲和其他地区制定此类管理协议提供参考。我们获得了 13 份南非与 11 个非洲邻国之间的双边医疗协议,作为研究南非病人流动性对医疗系统影响的更广泛研究项目的一部分,并对其内容和所述治理机制进行了专题分析。这些协议似乎是邻国之间的团结机制。它们包含了大量有关卫生外交的内容,但很少涉及卫生治理、管理和提供。尽管如此,考虑到这些协议涉及和不涉及的内容,以及如何涉及,它们为全球卫生外交机制以及在实践中解决病人流动和其他卫生相关问题的尝试提供了难得的启示。这些协议似乎是后种族隔离时期出现的表达团结的全球卫生外交机制,但所涵盖问题的细节很少,而且有一系列重要问题没有得到解决。需要进一步开展实证工作,以了解这些文件的含义,特别是在 Covid-19 的背景下,并了解其实施过程中遇到的挑战。这些文件还提出需要特别研究病人和卫生工作者的双边流动和经验,以及这与加强卫生系统的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bilateral health agreements of South Africa: an analysis of issues covered.

The bilateral agreements signed between South Africa and countries in Southern and Eastern Africa are a rare example of efforts to regulate health-related issues in a world region. As far as we know, there are no comparable bilateral health governance mechanisms in regions elsewhere. Furthermore, the rapidly growing literature on global health governance and governance for global health has to date not addressed the issue of patient mobility and how to govern it. In this study, we examine the issues included in these agreements, highlight key issues that they address, identify areas of omission and provide recommendations for improvement. This analysis should inform the development of such governance agreements both in Southern Africa and in regions elsewhere. We obtained 13 bilateral health agreements between South Africa and 11 neighbouring African countries as part of a broader research project examining the impact on health systems of patient mobility in South Africa, and thematically analysed their content and the governance mechanisms described. The agreements appear to be solidarity mechanisms between neighbouring countries. They contain considerable content on health diplomacy, with little on health governance, management and delivery. Nonetheless, given what they do and do not address, and how, they provide a rare insight into mechanisms of global health diplomacy and attempts to address patient mobility and other health-related issues in practice. The agreements appear to be global health diplomacy mechanisms expressing solidarity, emerging from a post-apartheid period, but with little detail of issues covered, and a range of important issues not addressed. Further empirical work is required to understand what these documents mean, particularly in the Covid-19 context, and to understand challenges with their implementation. The documents also raise the need for particular study of bilateral flows and experience of patients and health workers, and how this relates to health system strengthening.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health policy and planning
Health policy and planning 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.10%
发文量
98
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Health Policy and Planning publishes health policy and systems research focusing on low- and middle-income countries. Our journal provides an international forum for publishing original and high-quality research that addresses questions pertinent to policy-makers, public health researchers and practitioners. Health Policy and Planning is published 10 times a year.
×
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