Search

Unfair knowledge practices easily beset our efforts to achieve health equity within and between countries. Enacted by people from a distance and from a position of power ('the centre') on behalf of and alongside people with less power ('the periphery'), these unfair practices have generated a complex literature of complaints across various axes of inequity. We identified a sample of this literature from 12 journals and systematized it using the realist approach to explanation. We framed the outcome to be explained as 'manifestations of unfair knowledge practices'; their generative mechanisms as 'the reasoning of individuals or rationale of institutions'; and context that enable them as 'conditions that give knowledge practices their structure'. We identified four categories of unfair knowledge practices, each triggered by three mechanisms: (1) credibility deficit related to pose (mechanisms: 'the periphery's cultural knowledge, technical knowledge and "articulation" of knowledge do not matter'), (2) credibility deficit related to gaze (mechanisms: 'the centre's learning needs, knowledge platforms and scholarly standards must drive collective knowledge-making'), (3) interpretive marginalization related to pose (mechanisms: 'the periphery's sensemaking of partnerships, problems and social reality do not matter') and (4) interpretive marginalization related to gaze (mechanisms: 'the centre's learning needs, social sensitivities and status preservation must drive collective sensemaking'). Together, six mutually overlapping, reinforcing and dependent categories of context influence all 12 mechanisms: 'mislabelling' (the periphery as inferior), 'miseducation' (on structural origins of disadvantage), 'under-representation' (of the periphery on knowledge platforms), 'compounded spoils' (enjoyed by the centre), 'under-governance' (in making, changing, monitoring, enforcing and applying rules for fair engagement) and 'colonial mentality' (of/at the periphery). These context-mechanism-outcome linkages can inform efforts to redress unfair knowledge practices, investigations of unfair knowledge practices across disciplines and axes of inequity and ethics guidelines for health system research and practice when working at a social or physical distance., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

Efforts to promote the adoption and scale-up of health system innovations must contend with the existing institutional context. But there are no commonly used frameworks to ensure that the insights of actors involved in such institutional efforts connect to one another. To test and modify a potential framework-the 'four-by-four' framework-we interviewed researcher-entrepreneurs involved in the unfolding story of the cardiovascular Polypill. The framework has four types/levels of institutions that affect adoption and scale-up: (1) informal institutions (L1, e.g. social norms), (2) formal institutions (L2, e.g. government policies and regulation), (3) organizational structures (L3, e.g. organizational boards and mission) and (4) everyday exchange (L4, e.g. service delivery), vis-à-vis four potential entrepreneurial strategies in response: (1) abide by existing institutions, (2) evade them, (3) alter them and/or (4) exit entrepreneurial action. Using this framework, we conducted a realist-informed analysis to understand how context (i.e. institutions) and mechanism (i.e. entrepreneurial strategies) influence each other to shape outcomes (i.e. adoption and scale-up). We found that researcher-entrepreneurs began with efforts to abide with existing institutions but encountered institutional obstacles at each level. Efforts to abide were followed by seeking to evade and/or alter unfavourable institutions, with greater success evading and/or altering lower (L3 and L4) than upper (L1 and L2) institutions. Exit considerations followed the failure of the evade or alter strategy. Shifts between strategies were propelled by 'learning'. The 'four-by-four' framework can be used as a scaffold to generate narratives of adoption or scale-up efforts, a sensitizing tool to prospectively map out contingencies and a matrix to synthesize narratives and experiences across multiple innovations or settings. Used in these ways, the 'four-by-four' framework can help to optimize the transferability and cumulation of insights on how to promote the adoption and scale-up of health system innovations., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)