Search

Background: Thailand has expressed interest in joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), a twelve-country plurilateral trade agreement whose original incarnation included the United States of America (USA). When the USA withdrew from this agreement, key intellectual property clauses relevant to pharmaceuticals were suspended. These could be reinstated should the CPTPP Parties decide to do so. Methods: This study uses two scenarios to cost the impact the CPTPP would have had on Thailand's 2020 hepatitis C treatment regime if Thailand joined the CPTPP and suspended clauses were reinstated. Results: Joining the CPTPP could have increased the cost more than tenfold if suspended CPTPP clauses were reinstated and Thailand was not willing or able to issue compulsory licenses. Based on the 2020 budget, the price for this possible scenario could have reduced hepatitis C treatment coverage by 90%. Conclusions: Acceding to trade agreements such as the CPTPP that require increasing intellectual property protection, could compromise Thailand's hepatitis C program and other national treatment programs reliant on affordable generic medicines. The CPTPP could also prevent Thailand from relying on its own pharmaceutical capabilities to manufacture medicines needed to sustain its treatment programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Introduction: Structural stigma in the global HIV response is a “moving target” that constantly evolves as the epidemic changes. Tackling structural stigma requires an understanding of the drivers and facilitators of stigma in complex community, policy and health systems. In this paper, we present findings from a study adopting a systems perspective to understand how to tackle structural stigma via the Meaningful Involvement of People with HIV/AIDS (MIPA), while highlighting the challenges in demonstrating peer leadership from people living with HIV (PLHIV). Methods: Through a long‐term ongoing community‐research collaboration (2015–2023), the study applied systems thinking methods to draw together the insights of over 90 peer staff from 10 Australian community and peer organizations. We used hypothetical narratives, affinity methods and causal loop diagrams to co‐create system maps that visualize the factors that influence the extent to which peer leadership is expected, respected, sought‐out and funded in the Australian context. We then developed draft indicators of what we should see happening when PLHIV peer leadership and MIPA is enabled to challenge structural stigma. Results: Participants in the collaboration identified the interactions at a system level, which can enable or constrain the quality and influence of PLHIV peer leadership. Participants identified that effective peer leadership is itself affected by structural stigma, and peer leaders and the programmes that support and enable peer leadership must navigate a complex network of causal pathways and strategic pitfalls. Participants identified that indicators for effective PLHIV peer leadership in terms of engagement, alignment, adaptation and influence also required indicators for policy and service organizations to recognize their own system role to value and enable PLHIV peer leadership. Failing to strengthen and incorporate PLHIV leadership within broader systems of policy making and health service provision was identified as an example of structural stigma. Conclusions: Incorporating PLHIV leadership creates a virtuous cycle, because, as PLHIV voices are heard and trusted, the case for their inclusion only gets stronger. This paper argues that a systems perspective can help to guide the most productive leverage points for intervention to tackle structural stigma and promote effective PLHIV leadership., INTRODUCTION Despite advancements in HIV care and prevention, HIV stigma and discrimination continue to undermine quality of life for people living with HIV (PLHIV) [1]. In order for multi‐level interventions [...]

The literature on the evidence-policy nexus has been dominated in recent years by technocratic approaches such as 'knowledge translation'. Attention is beginning to return, however, to political science for its insights into the distribution of power, which are key to understanding how policy is made, particularly in the health sphere. Policy network theory, which suggests that policy outcomes are shaped by the interactions between actors in a network, points to the configuration of networks as an important focus of study. However, policy outcomes also depend on the agency of the actors themselves; actors who use language to frame issues in certain ways in order to create change. While 'policy networks' and 'policy frames' have each received attention, there is a need for analytical tools which allow us to examine the interaction between network structure and frames. The paper describes a novel approach to aligning network structure and frames, which we tested using a single policy case study analysing submissions to a specific policy process. Overlaying policy frames with a network map, we were able to identify 'boundary spanners' who could connect the agendas of different parts of the network. We explain our analytic approach and the technical tools available to support it, and encourage researchers interested in the interface between evidence and policy to build on this approach.

Societies often respond to a crisis by attributing blame to some groups while constructing others as victims and heroes. While it has received scant sociological attention, 'panic buying' is a critical indicator of such public sentiment at the onset of a crisis, and thus a crucial site for analysis. This article traces dynamics of blame in news media representations of an extreme period of panic buying during COVID-19 in Australia. Analysis reveals that lower socio-economic and ethnically diverse consumers were blamed disproportionately. Unlike wealthier consumers who bulk-bought online, shoppers filling trollies in-store were depicted as selfish and shameful, described using dehumanising language, and portrayed as 'villains' who threatened social order. Supermarkets were cast simultaneously as 'victims' of consumer aggression and 'heroes' for their moral leadership, trustworthiness and problem-solving. This portrayal misunderstands the socio-emotional drivers of panic buying, exacerbates stigma towards already disadvantaged groups, and veils the corporate profiteering that encourages stockpiling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]