Thinking politically about intersectoral action: Ideas, Interests and Institutions shaping political dimensions of governing during COVID-19.

Autor:	Baum F; Stretton Health Equity, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia., Musolino C; Stretton Health Equity, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia., Freeman T; Stretton Health Equity, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia., Flavel J; Stretton Health Equity, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia., Ceukelaire W; Research Unit, Médecine pour le Peuple, Rue du Comte de Flandre 25, Brussels 1080, Belgium., Chi C; Center for Global Health, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 7331, USA., Dardet CA; University of Alicante, Ctra. San Vicente s/n, 03690 San Vicente del Raseig, Alicante, Spain., Falcão MZ; LLM, University of São Paulo, Brazil, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 715-21- Cerqueira César, São Paulo, SP 01246- 904, Brazil., Friel S; Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia., Gesesew HA; Research Centre for Public Health, Equity and Human Flourishing, Torrens University Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.; College of Health Sciences, Mekelle University, Mekelle 231, Ethiopia., Giugliani C; Faculty of Medicine, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Ramiro Barcellos, 2400 CEP 90035-003, Porto Alegre, Brazil., Howden-Chapman P; Department of Public Health, University of Otago, PO Box 7343 Newtown, Wellington 6042, New Zealand., Huong NT; Faculty of Social Science and Behavior, Hanoi University of Public Health, 1A Duc Thang Road, Duc Thang Ward, North Tu Liem District, Hanoi, Vietnam., Kim S; People's Health Movement, 36 Sadang-ro 13-gil, Dongjak-gu Seoul 07004, South Korea., London L; School of Public Health, University of Cape Town, Falmouth Rd, Observatory, Cape Town 7925, South Africa., McKee M; London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel St., London WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom., Nandi S; Public Health Researcher, Ebertsgade 6, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark., Paremoer L; Political Studies, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Cape Town 7700, South Africa., Popay J; Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health & Medicine, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4YW, United Kingdom., Serag H; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), 301 University Blvd., Galveston, TX 77555, USA., Thiagarajan S; People's Health Movement Adjunct Faculty, International School of Public Health, Jawaharal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, 30, Thiru Nagar, Puducherry 605010, India., Tangcharoensathien V; International Health Policy Programme, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand., Villar E; Facultad de Salud Pública y Administración, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredio, San Martín de Porres 15102, Peru.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Health policy and planning [Health Policy Plan] 2024 Nov 18; Vol. 39 (Supplement_2), pp. i75-i92.
DOI:	10.1093/heapol/czae047
Abstrakt:	Our paper examines the political considerations in the intersectoral action that was evident during the SAR-COV-2 virus (COVID-19) pandemic through case studies of political and institutional responses in 16 nations (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Ethiopia, India, New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, UK, and USA). Our qualitative case study approach involved an iterative process of data gathering and interpretation through the three Is (institutions, ideas and interests) lens, which we used to shape our understanding of political and intersectoral factors affecting pandemic responses. The institutional factors examined were: national economic and political context; influence of the global economic order; structural inequities; and public health structures and legislation, including intersectoral action. The ideas explored were: orientation of governments; political actors' views on science; willingness to challenge neoliberal policies; previous pandemic experiences. We examined the interests of political leaders and civil society and the extent of public trust. We derived five elements that predict effective and equity-sensitive political responses to a pandemic. Firstly, effective responses have to be intersectoral and led from the head of government with technical support from health agencies. Secondly, we found that political leaders' willingness to accept science, communicate empathetically and avoid 'othering' population groups was vital. The lack of political will was found in those countries stressing individualistic values. Thirdly, a supportive civil society which questions governments about excessive infringement of human rights without adopting populist anti-science views, and is free to express opposition to the government encourages effective political action in the interests of the population. Fourthly, citizen trust is vital in times of uncertainty and fear. Fifthly, evidence of consideration is needed regarding when people's health must be prioritized over the needs of the economy. All these factors are unlikely to be present in any one country. Recognizing the political aspects of pandemic preparedness is vital for effective responses to future pandemics and while intersectoral action is vital, it is not enough in isolation to improve pandemic outcomes. (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu