资源不足的产前诊所的多层风险管理:科学官僚主义方法与街头官僚主义

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Tracey Feltham-King, C. Macleod
{"title":"资源不足的产前诊所的多层风险管理:科学官僚主义方法与街头官僚主义","authors":"Tracey Feltham-King, C. Macleod","doi":"10.1080/13698575.2019.1697432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article we contribute to critical risk approaches to studying pregnancy and childbirth in the global South. Following Sarah Rudrum’s work, our approach focusses on sociocultural inequalities amid the regulation of individuals. We draw on data from our Foucauldian-inspired ethnography of two antenatal clinics in an under-resourced area of South Africa to illustrate how multi-layered risk management operates in these spaces. These data were collected over a period of six months in the form of semi-structured interviews, observations of consultations and waiting room interactions, documents used in the clinic, and posters appearing on the clinic walls. Our findings show how a scientific-bureaucratic approach to pregnancy risk management, as encoded in international, national and institutional guidelines, is well known, highly visible, and practised through surveillance and reporting mechanisms in clinics. This approach incites healthcare practitioners to achieve particular performance standards and to monitor their professional agency. Managing pregnancy risk thus entails regulating the healthcare practitioners themselves. In implementing approved pregnancy risk management strategies in an over-subscribed and under-resourced public healthcare setting, however, healthcare practitioners face potential risk to their professional reputation and integrity. In managing this risk, they resist the scientific-bureaucratic approach through: depicting themselves as victims of unfair institutional arrangements or unreasonable patients; instituting street-level bureaucracy to control access to the clinics; and controlling patients’ actions in authoritarian ways. Our research shows that without engagement with the on-the-ground realities of the antenatal clinic in resource-poor environments, a scientific-bureaucratic approach to pregnancy risk management is inevitably limited in its effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":47341,"journal":{"name":"Health Risk & Society","volume":"18 1","pages":"31 - 52"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multi-layered risk management in under-resourced antenatal clinics: a scientific-bureaucratic approach versus street-level bureaucracy\",\"authors\":\"Tracey Feltham-King, C. Macleod\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13698575.2019.1697432\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article we contribute to critical risk approaches to studying pregnancy and childbirth in the global South. Following Sarah Rudrum’s work, our approach focusses on sociocultural inequalities amid the regulation of individuals. We draw on data from our Foucauldian-inspired ethnography of two antenatal clinics in an under-resourced area of South Africa to illustrate how multi-layered risk management operates in these spaces. These data were collected over a period of six months in the form of semi-structured interviews, observations of consultations and waiting room interactions, documents used in the clinic, and posters appearing on the clinic walls. Our findings show how a scientific-bureaucratic approach to pregnancy risk management, as encoded in international, national and institutional guidelines, is well known, highly visible, and practised through surveillance and reporting mechanisms in clinics. This approach incites healthcare practitioners to achieve particular performance standards and to monitor their professional agency. Managing pregnancy risk thus entails regulating the healthcare practitioners themselves. In implementing approved pregnancy risk management strategies in an over-subscribed and under-resourced public healthcare setting, however, healthcare practitioners face potential risk to their professional reputation and integrity. In managing this risk, they resist the scientific-bureaucratic approach through: depicting themselves as victims of unfair institutional arrangements or unreasonable patients; instituting street-level bureaucracy to control access to the clinics; and controlling patients’ actions in authoritarian ways. Our research shows that without engagement with the on-the-ground realities of the antenatal clinic in resource-poor environments, a scientific-bureaucratic approach to pregnancy risk management is inevitably limited in its effectiveness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Risk & Society\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"31 - 52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Risk & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2019.1697432\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Risk & Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2019.1697432","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在这篇文章中,我们为研究南半球怀孕和分娩的关键风险方法做出了贡献。继Sarah Rudrum的工作之后,我们的方法集中在个人监管中的社会文化不平等。我们从南非资源不足地区的两家产前诊所的福柯式民族志中提取数据,以说明多层风险管理如何在这些空间中运作。这些数据是在六个月的时间里以半结构化访谈的形式收集的,包括对咨询和候诊室互动的观察,诊所使用的文件,以及诊所墙上出现的海报。我们的研究结果表明,在国际、国家和机构的指导方针中,科学官僚主义的妊娠风险管理方法是如何众所周知的,高度可见的,并通过诊所的监督和报告机制得到实践。这种方法鼓励医疗保健从业人员达到特定的绩效标准,并监督他们的专业机构。因此,管理怀孕风险需要规范医疗从业人员本身。然而,在超额认购和资源不足的公共医疗环境中实施批准的妊娠风险管理策略时,医疗从业人员面临着其职业声誉和诚信的潜在风险。在管理这一风险时,他们通过以下方式抵制科学官僚主义方法:将自己描述为不公平制度安排的受害者或不合理的患者;建立基层官僚机构来控制进入诊所的通道;以专制的方式控制病人的行为。我们的研究表明,在资源贫乏的环境中,如果没有与产前诊所的实际情况接触,科学-官僚主义的怀孕风险管理方法的有效性将不可避免地受到限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multi-layered risk management in under-resourced antenatal clinics: a scientific-bureaucratic approach versus street-level bureaucracy
In this article we contribute to critical risk approaches to studying pregnancy and childbirth in the global South. Following Sarah Rudrum’s work, our approach focusses on sociocultural inequalities amid the regulation of individuals. We draw on data from our Foucauldian-inspired ethnography of two antenatal clinics in an under-resourced area of South Africa to illustrate how multi-layered risk management operates in these spaces. These data were collected over a period of six months in the form of semi-structured interviews, observations of consultations and waiting room interactions, documents used in the clinic, and posters appearing on the clinic walls. Our findings show how a scientific-bureaucratic approach to pregnancy risk management, as encoded in international, national and institutional guidelines, is well known, highly visible, and practised through surveillance and reporting mechanisms in clinics. This approach incites healthcare practitioners to achieve particular performance standards and to monitor their professional agency. Managing pregnancy risk thus entails regulating the healthcare practitioners themselves. In implementing approved pregnancy risk management strategies in an over-subscribed and under-resourced public healthcare setting, however, healthcare practitioners face potential risk to their professional reputation and integrity. In managing this risk, they resist the scientific-bureaucratic approach through: depicting themselves as victims of unfair institutional arrangements or unreasonable patients; instituting street-level bureaucracy to control access to the clinics; and controlling patients’ actions in authoritarian ways. Our research shows that without engagement with the on-the-ground realities of the antenatal clinic in resource-poor environments, a scientific-bureaucratic approach to pregnancy risk management is inevitably limited in its effectiveness.
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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Health Risk & Society is an international scholarly journal devoted to a theoretical and empirical understanding of the social processes which influence the ways in which health risks are taken, communicated, assessed and managed. Public awareness of risk is associated with the development of high profile media debates about specific risks. Although risk issues arise in a variety of areas, such as technological usage and the environment, they are particularly evident in health. Not only is health a major issue of personal and collective concern, but failure to effectively assess and manage risk is likely to result in health problems.
×
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