Search

The aim was to analyse and improve the Primary Health Care (PHC) response to domestic violence against women (DVAW) by developing, implementing and evaluating an intervention. A pilot study evaluating the before and after of intervention implementation, using mixed methods and carried out in three phases - formative, intervention and evaluation - between August 2017 and March 2019 in two Basic Health Units (UBS) in the city of São Paulo. In this paper, we present the details and evaluation of the intervention, carried out six to twelve months after its implementation. The intervention was developed based on the findings of the formative phase and in line with the health policy that establishes the Violence Prevention Nucleus (NPV) and consisted of stablishing a care pathway; general training for all workers and specific training for the NPV; drawing up educational material and monthly case discussions over 6 months. The evaluation showed acceptability among the workers, increased identification and repertoire for caring for cases of DVAW, strengthening internal referral and the intersectoral network. We identified obstacles to the full implementation and sustainability of the intervention.

Background: Studying global health problems requires international multidisciplinary teams. Such multidisciplinarity and multiculturalism create challenges in adhering to a set of ethical principles across different country contexts. Our group on health system responses to violence against women (VAW) included two universities in a European high-income country (HIC) and four universities in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to investigate professional and policy perspectives on the types, causes of, and solutions to ethical challenges specific to the ethics approval stage of the global research projects on health system responses to VAW., Methods: We used the Network of Ethical Relationships model, framework method, and READ approach to analyse qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 18) and policy documents (n = 27). In March-July 2021, we recruited a purposive sample of researchers and members of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) from the five partner countries. Interviewees signposted policies and guidelines on research ethics, including VAW., Results: We developed three themes with eight subthemes summarising ethical challenges across three contextual factors. The global nature of the group contributed towards power and resource imbalance between HIC and LMICs and differing RECs' rules. Location of the primary studies within health services highlighted differing rules between university RECs and health authorities. There were diverse conceptualisations of VAW and vulnerability of research participants between countries and limited methodological and topic expertise in some LMIC RECs. These factors threatened the timely delivery of studies and had a negative impact on researchers and their relationships with RECs and HIC funders. Most researchers felt frustrated and demotivated by the bureaucratised, uncoordinated, and lengthy approval process. Participants suggested redistributing power and resources between HICs and LMICs, involving LMIC representatives in developing funding agendas, better coordination between RECs and health authorities and capacity strengthening on ethics in VAW research., Conclusions: The process of ethics approval for global research on health system responses to VAW should be more coordinated across partners, with equal power distribution between HICs and LMICs, researchers and RECs. While some of these objectives can be achieved through education for RECs and researchers, the power imbalance and differing rules should be addressed at the institutional, national, and international levels. Three of the authors were also research participants, which had potential to introduce bias into the findings. However, rigorous reflexivity practices mitigated against this. This insider perspective was also a strength, as it allowed us to access and contribute to more nuanced understandings to enhance the credibility of the findings. It also helped to mitigate against unequal power dynamics., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

This paper starts from humanization policies and the academic debate around them to reflect about institutional violence inside health services. Based on research on scientific publications in Collective Health, it was observed that violence in relationships between health professionals and users - which is at the core of the humanization's debate - is conceptualized as an excessive power in exercise of professional authority. Using Hannah Arendt thinking as theoretical contributions regarding the concepts of 'authority', 'power' and 'violence', our objective is to define and rethink these phenomena. Melting these reflections with the history of institutionalization of health in Brazil, and especially the changes in medical work during the twentieth century, we conclude that the problem of institutional violence on health services is not based on excess of authority and power of professionals, but rather in its opposite. When there is a vacuum of professional authority, and relationships between people do not happen through power relations, there is space for the phenomenon of violence.

Based on the Brazilian context, this paper addresses medical power in terms of the current conflicts in the intersubjective relationships that doctors establish in their work, conflicts considered here as a product of a crisis of trust connected to recent historical transformations in the medical practice. Reading these conflicts as questions of an ethical and moral order, we use Hanna Arendt's theoretical formulations to further analyze this crisis of trust. In this way, utilizing the concepts of "crisis," "tradition," "power," "authority," and "natality," we search for new meanings regarding these conflicts, enabling new paths and solutions that avoid nostalgia for the past.