What Are Healthy Societies? A Thematic Analysis of Relevant Conceptual Frameworks

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Health Policy and Management Pub Date : 2023-11-07 DOI:10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7450
Kent Buse, Amy Bestman, Siddharth Srivastava, R. Marten, Sonam Yangchen, Devaki Nambiar
{"title":"What Are Healthy Societies? A Thematic Analysis of Relevant Conceptual Frameworks","authors":"Kent Buse, Amy Bestman, Siddharth Srivastava, R. Marten, Sonam Yangchen, Devaki Nambiar","doi":"10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: While support for the idea of fostering healthy societies is longstanding, there is a gap in the literature on what they are, how to beget them, and how experience might inform future efforts. This paper explores developments since Alma Ata (1978) to understand how a range of related concepts and fields inform approaches to healthy societies and to develop a model to help conceptualize future research and policy initiatives. Methods: Drawing on 68 purposively selected documents, including political declarations, commission and agency reports, peer-reviewed papers and guidance notes, we undertook qualitative thematic analysis. Three independent researchers compiled and categorised themes describing the domains of a potential healthy societies approach. Results: The literature provides numerous frameworks. Some of these frameworks promote alternative endpoints to development, eschewing short-term economic growth in favour of health, equity, well-being and sustainability. They also identify values, such as gender equality, collaboration, human rights and empowerment that provide the pathways to, or underpin, such endpoints. We categorize the literature into four \"components\": people; places; products; and planet. People refers to social positions, interactions and networks creating well-being. Places are physical environments—built and natural—and the interests and policies shaping them. Products are commodities and commercial practices impacting population health. Planet places human health in the context of the ‘Anthropocene.’ These components interact in complex ways across global, regional, country and community levels as outlined in our heuristic. Conclusion: The literature offers little critical reflection on why greater progress has not been made, or on the need to organise and resist the prevailing systems which perpetuate ill-health.","PeriodicalId":14135,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7450","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

Abstract

Background: While support for the idea of fostering healthy societies is longstanding, there is a gap in the literature on what they are, how to beget them, and how experience might inform future efforts. This paper explores developments since Alma Ata (1978) to understand how a range of related concepts and fields inform approaches to healthy societies and to develop a model to help conceptualize future research and policy initiatives. Methods: Drawing on 68 purposively selected documents, including political declarations, commission and agency reports, peer-reviewed papers and guidance notes, we undertook qualitative thematic analysis. Three independent researchers compiled and categorised themes describing the domains of a potential healthy societies approach. Results: The literature provides numerous frameworks. Some of these frameworks promote alternative endpoints to development, eschewing short-term economic growth in favour of health, equity, well-being and sustainability. They also identify values, such as gender equality, collaboration, human rights and empowerment that provide the pathways to, or underpin, such endpoints. We categorize the literature into four "components": people; places; products; and planet. People refers to social positions, interactions and networks creating well-being. Places are physical environments—built and natural—and the interests and policies shaping them. Products are commodities and commercial practices impacting population health. Planet places human health in the context of the ‘Anthropocene.’ These components interact in complex ways across global, regional, country and community levels as outlined in our heuristic. Conclusion: The literature offers little critical reflection on why greater progress has not been made, or on the need to organise and resist the prevailing systems which perpetuate ill-health.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
什么是健康社会?相关概念框架的专题分析
背景:虽然促进健康社会的理念长期以来一直得到支持,但关于什么是健康社会、如何建立健康社会以及如何利用经验为未来的工作提供依据等方面的文献却存在空白。本文探讨了自阿拉木图会议(1978 年)以来的发展情况,以了解一系列相关概念和领域是如何为健康社会提供信息的,并建立一个模型,帮助构思未来的研究和政策措施。方法:我们利用 68 份特意挑选的文件,包括政治宣言、委员会和机构报告、同行评审论文和指导说明,进行了定性专题分析。三位独立研究人员对描述潜在健康社会方法领域的主题进行了汇编和分类。结果文献提供了许多框架。其中一些框架提倡发展的替代终点,摒弃短期经济增长,转而关注健康、公平、福祉和可持续性。它们还确定了一些价值观,如性别平等、协作、人权和赋权,这些价值观为实现这些终点提供了途径或基础。我们将文献分为四个 "组成部分":人、地点、产品和地球。人是指创造福祉的社会地位、互动和网络。地点是指自然环境,包括建筑和自然环境,以及塑造这些环境的利益和政策。产品是指影响人口健康的商品和商业行为。地球将人类健康置于 "人类世 "的背景下。正如我们的启发式所概述的,这些组成部分在全球、地区、国家和社区层面以复杂的方式相互作用。结论:对于为何没有取得更大的进展,或者对于组织和抵制使健康状况不佳现象长期存在的现行制度的必要性,文献几乎没有提供批判性的反思。
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 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
International Journal of Health Policy and Management Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) is a monthly open access, peer-reviewed journal which serves as an international and interdisciplinary setting for the dissemination of health policy and management research. It brings together individual specialties from different fields, notably health management/policy/economics, epidemiology, social/public policy, and philosophy into a dynamic academic mix.
期刊最新文献
Why Are African Researchers Left Behind in Global Scientific Publications? - A Viewpoint. Grappling With the Inclusion of Patients and the Public in Consensus Building: A Commentary on Inclusion, Safety, and Accessibility; Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study". Phase IV Drug Trials With a Canadian Site: A Comparison of Industry and Non-Industry-Funded Trials. The Rhetoric of Decolonizing Global Health Fails to Address the Reality of Settler Colonialism. Gaza as a Case in Point. Building a Systems Map: Applying Systems Thinking to Unhealthy Commodity Industry Influence on Public Health Policy.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1