Why does a public health issue (not) get priority? Agenda setting for the national burns programme in India.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health policy and planning Pub Date : 2024-05-15 DOI:10.1093/heapol/czae019
Vikash Ranjan Keshri, Jagnoor Jagnoor, Margie Peden, Robyn Norton, Seye Abimbola
{"title":"Why does a public health issue (not) get priority? Agenda setting for the national burns programme in India.","authors":"Vikash Ranjan Keshri, Jagnoor Jagnoor, Margie Peden, Robyn Norton, Seye Abimbola","doi":"10.1093/heapol/czae019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is growing scholarly interest in what leads to global or national prioritization of specific health issues. By retrospectively analysing agenda setting for India's national burn programme, this study aimed to better understand how the agenda-setting process influenced its design, implementation and performance. We conducted document reviews and key informant interviews with stakeholders and used a combination of analytical frameworks on policy prioritization and issue framing for analysis. The READ (readying material, extracting data, analysing data and distilling findings) approach was used for document reviews, and qualitative thematic analysis was used for coding and analysis of documents and interviews. The findings suggest three critical features of burns care policy prioritization in India: challenges of issue characteristics, divergent portrayal of ideas and its framing as a social and/or health issue and over-centralization of agenda setting. First, lack of credible indicators on the magnitude of the problem and evidence on interventions limited issue framing, advocacy and agenda setting. Second, the policy response to burns has two dimensions in India: response to gender-based intentional injuries and the healthcare response. While intentional burns have received policy attention, the healthcare response was limited until the national programme was initiated in 2010 and scaled up in 2014. Third, over-centralization of agenda setting (dominated by a few homogenous actors, located in the national capital, with attention focused on the national ministry of health) contributed to limitations in programme design and implementation. We note following elements to consider when analysing issues of significant burden but limited priority: the need to analyse how actors influence issue framing, the particularities of issues, the inadequacy of any one dominant frame and the limited intersection of frames. Based on this analysis in India, we recommend a decentralized approach to agenda setting and for the design and implementation of national programmes from the outset.</p>","PeriodicalId":12926,"journal":{"name":"Health policy and planning","volume":" ","pages":"457-468"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11095263/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health policy and planning","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czae019","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

There is growing scholarly interest in what leads to global or national prioritization of specific health issues. By retrospectively analysing agenda setting for India's national burn programme, this study aimed to better understand how the agenda-setting process influenced its design, implementation and performance. We conducted document reviews and key informant interviews with stakeholders and used a combination of analytical frameworks on policy prioritization and issue framing for analysis. The READ (readying material, extracting data, analysing data and distilling findings) approach was used for document reviews, and qualitative thematic analysis was used for coding and analysis of documents and interviews. The findings suggest three critical features of burns care policy prioritization in India: challenges of issue characteristics, divergent portrayal of ideas and its framing as a social and/or health issue and over-centralization of agenda setting. First, lack of credible indicators on the magnitude of the problem and evidence on interventions limited issue framing, advocacy and agenda setting. Second, the policy response to burns has two dimensions in India: response to gender-based intentional injuries and the healthcare response. While intentional burns have received policy attention, the healthcare response was limited until the national programme was initiated in 2010 and scaled up in 2014. Third, over-centralization of agenda setting (dominated by a few homogenous actors, located in the national capital, with attention focused on the national ministry of health) contributed to limitations in programme design and implementation. We note following elements to consider when analysing issues of significant burden but limited priority: the need to analyse how actors influence issue framing, the particularities of issues, the inadequacy of any one dominant frame and the limited intersection of frames. Based on this analysis in India, we recommend a decentralized approach to agenda setting and for the design and implementation of national programmes from the outset.

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
为什么公共卫生问题(没有)得到优先考虑?印度国家烧伤计划的议程设置。
学术界对导致全球或国家优先考虑特定健康问题的原因越来越感兴趣。本研究通过回顾性分析印度国家烧伤计划的议程设置,旨在更好地了解议程设置过程是如何影响其设计、实施和绩效的。我们对相关人员进行了文件审查和关键信息访谈,并结合使用了政策优先级和问题框架的分析框架进行分析。文件审查采用 READ(准备材料、提取数据、分析数据和提炼结论)方法,文件和访谈的编码和分析采用定性主题分析方法。研究结果表明,印度烧伤护理政策的优先次序有三个关键特征:问题特征的挑战、不同观点的描述及其作为社会和/或健康问题的框架,以及议程设置的过度集中化。首先,缺乏有关问题严重程度的可靠指标和干预措施的证据,限制了问题的提出、宣传和议程的制定。其次,在印度,针对烧伤的政策应对措施有两个方面:对基于性别的故意伤害的应对措施和医疗保健应对措施。虽然蓄意烧伤受到了政策关注,但在 2010 年启动国家计划并在 2014 年扩大规模之前,医疗保健应对措施十分有限。第三,议程制定过于集中(由位于国家首都的少数同质参与者主导,关注点集中在国家卫生部)导致了计划设计和实施的局限性。我们注意到,在分析负担沉重但优先程度有限的问题时,需要考虑以下因素:需要分析行动者如何影响问题的框架、问题的特殊性、任何一个主导框架的不足以及框架之间的有限交叉。基于对印度的分析,我们建议从一开始就采用权力下放的方法来制定议程、设计和实施国家计划。
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
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.
期刊最新文献
Conceptualising maternal mental health in rural Ghana: A realist qualitative analysis. Learning Analysis of Health System Resilience. Managing medicines in decentralisation: discrepancies between national policies and local practices in primary healthcare settings in Indonesia. What is the relationship between hospital management practices and quality of care? A systematic review of the global evidence. Development partner influence on domestic health financing contributions in Senegal: a mixed methods case study.
×
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