Search results

Unequal social conditions that provide people with unequal opportunities to live healthy lives are considered unjust and associated with “health inequity”. Governing power is impacting people's lives through laws, policies and professional decisions, and can be used intentionally to combat health inequity by addressing and changing people's living- and working conditions. Little attention is paid to how these ways of exercising governing power unintentionally can structure further conditions for health inequity. In this paper, the authors coin the term “governance determinants of health” (GDHs). The authors' discussion of GDHs potential impact on health inequity can help avoid the implementation of governing strategies with an adverse impact on health equality. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned objective.

The authors identify Governance Determinants of Health, the GDHs. GDHs refer to governance strategies that structurally impact healthcare systems and health equality. The authors focus on the unintended, blind sides of GDHs that maintain or reinforce the effects of socioeconomic inequality on health.

The power to organize healthcare is manifested in distinct structural approaches such as juridification, politicalization, bureaucratization and medical standardization. The authors explore the links between different forms of governance and health inequalities.

The authors' discussion in this article is innovative as it seeks to develop a framework that targets power dynamics inherent in GHDs to help identify and avoid GDHs that may promote unequal access to healthcare and prompt health inequity. However, this framework has limitations as the real-world, blurred and intertwined aspects of governing instruments are simplified for analytical purposes. As such, it risks overestimating the boundaries between the separate instruments and reducing the complexity of how the GDHs work in practice. Consequently, this kind of theory-driven framework does not do justice to the myriad of peoples' complex empirical practices where GDHs may overlap and intertwine with each other. Nevertheless, this framework can still help assist governing authorities in imagining a direction for the impacts of GDHs on health equity, so they can take precautionary steps to avoid adverse impacts.

The authors develop and explore – and demonstrate – the relevance of a framework that can assist governing authorities in anticipating the impacts of GDHs on health inequity.

This chapter provides comparative insights into the context of equality and diversity in the United States and the United Kingdom. It argues that there is a real danger that progressive initiatives in combatting racism in both countries may have stalled and indeed may be slipping backwards. The chapter focuses on one sector, the healthcare sector, where service delivery is local but where in both countries there is huge reliance on an international workforce through migration. Despite huge differences in the US and UK healthcare systems, it is found that the pattern of migration with respect to both highly qualified professional workers (e.g. physicians) and middle and lower ranked workers is similar. The resilience of racial disadvantage is exposed in the context of a range diversity management initiatives.

This chapter provides a comprehensive exploration of the pivotal role of family planning in advancing sustainable development goals (SDGs). It elucidates the intrinsic connection between family planning and sustainable development, scrutinizes the harmonization of family planning initiatives with SDG targets and indicators, gleans insights from global approaches, and identifies formidable challenges, with a particular focus on marginalized communities. This chapter culminates with a set of substantial recommendations aimed at surmounting these challenges and propelling SDG attainment through the prism of family planning.

This article examines the determinants of social equality in the education and healthcare sectors in the 15 post-Soviet states. Focussing on regime type and civil society organisations (CSOs), it argues that countries where liberal principles of democracy are achieved or have a stronger civil society deliver a more equitable social policy.

The empirical analysis rests upon a time-series cross-sectional (TSCS) analysis from 1992 to 2019. Data are collected from the Quality of Government (QoG) Dataset 2020 and the Variates of Democracy (V-DEM) Dataset 2020.

The findings demonstrate that while regime type only partially accounts for social equality, as electoral autocracies do not have more equitable social policy than close regime types and democracy weakly explains equality levels, the strength of CSOs is associated with more equality.

The article challenges dominant approaches that consider electoral democracy to be related to more equal social policy and demonstrates that de-facto free and fair elections do not impinge on social equality, while the strength of liberal and civil liberties and CSOs correlate with more equitable social policy.

The foremost objective of this chapter was to present an overview of the cooperative healthcare sector in Argentina by reviewing its brief history, components and the role these healthcare cooperatives play in the society. The second objective was to look at how these cooperatives have helped women and the local communities in which they operate.

This paper has used chiefly secondary data derived from various academic papers and official and government websites which publish cooperative sector-related information. The intention was to construct a concise yet detailed study that would be of help to other researchers in the field of healthcare cooperatives since the data related to Argentina is highly scattered and frequently found not up to date.

The research has found that health cooperatives in Argentina have aided in overcoming problems in the sector such as sectoral fragmentation, negligence and frequently inadequate standards of care management as well as operational and implementation failures that the private and government healthcare players have been accused of being fraught with. Furthermore, the cooperatives have frequently played a complementary or supplementary role rather than a competitive one with the private and government players.

Through the examples presented in this chapter, it is evident that health cooperatives in Argentina are making large impacts in the healthcare domain along with positively impacting women, marginalised and vulnerable sections of the society and the community. It only remains to be seen now how far this sector will grow in the future and how many more lives will be benefitted.

The purpose of this paper is to explore potential benefits in aligning Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs) with implementation of the Equality Delivery System (EDS) to improve commissioning of healthcare for minority ethnic groups.

The paper draws on data gathered for a large research study carried out in England exploring the use of evidence in commissioning for multi‐ethnic populations, to present a reflective discussion on the potential synergies between JSNA and EDS processes. Qualitative data were collected from 62 interviews with stakeholders in Sheffield, Leeds and Bradford, who, as part of their normal role, had an active responsibility to contribute to decision making for commissioning healthcare. 19 individuals working in national roles with experience in evidence use, ethnicity and commissioning across NHS, local authorities and third sector were also interviewed. Observational data were collected through regular attendance at an NHS Equality Group, which had Equality Delivery System implementation within its remit, and from a regional workshop focussing on Joint Strategic Needs Assessment improvements. Observations also came via participation in local EDS implementation meetings across Sheffield, Leeds and Bradford. These data were supplemented by a review of local and national policy literature about implementing JSNA and EDS.

Formally strengthening the connection between JSNAs and the EDS has potential benefits for enhancing the evidence base about health and wellbeing needs of minority groups in general, and ethnic minorities in particular.

NHS and Local Authority organisations need to establish structural processes to formally connect these two workstreams and to ensure adequate resource is made available, with clear direction from senior management.

This study aims to explore the nexus of equality and efficiency by considering public hospitals' development dynamics, capacity and technology indicators.

Data was collected from the Ministry of Health Public Hospital Almanacs from 2014 to 2017. The Gini index (GI) is used to estimate the inequality of distribution of hospital performance indicators. A bias-corrected efficiency analysis is calculated to obtain efficiency scores of public hospitals for the year 2017. A path analysis is then constructed to better identify patterns of causation among a set of development, equality and efficiency variables.

A redefined path model highlights that development dynamics, equality and efficiency are causally related and health technology (path coefficient = 0.57; t = 19.07; p < 0.01) and health services utilization (path coefficient = 0.24; t = 8; p < 0.01) effects public hospital efficiency. The final path model fit well (X²/df = 50.99/8 = 6; RMSEA = 0.089; NFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96; GFI = 0.98; AGFI = 0.94). Study findings indicate high inequalities in distribution of health technologies (GI > 0.85), number of surgical operations (GI > 0.70) and number of inpatients (GI > 0.60) among public hospitals for the years 2014–2017.

Study results highlight that, hospital managers should prioritize equal distribution of health technology and health services utilization indicators to better orchestrate equity-efficiency trade-off in their operations.