فهرست مطالب kent buse

Background  As the Sustainable Development Goals deadline of 2030 draws near, greater attention is being given to health beyond the health sector, in other words, to the creation of healthy societies. However, action and reform in this area has not kept pace, in part due to a focus on narrower interventions and the lack of upstream action on health inequity. With an aim to guide action and political engagement for reform, we conducted a thematic analysis of concepts seeking to arrive at healthy societies.Methods  This paper drew on a qualitative thematic analysis of a purposive sample of 68 documents including political declarations, reports, peer reviewed literature and guidance published since 1974. Three independent reviewers extracted data to identify, discuss and critique public policy levers and ‘enablers’ of healthy societies, the “how.”Results  The first lever concerned regulatory and fiscal measures. The second was intersectoral action. The final lever a shift in the global consensus around what signifies societal transformation and outcomes. The three enablers covered political leadership and accountability, popular mobilization and the generation and use of knowledge.Conclusion  Documents focused largely on technical rather than political solutions. Even as the importance of political leadership was recognized, analysis of power was limited. Rights-based approaches were generally neglected as was assessing what worked or did not work to pull the levers or invest in the enablers. Frameworks typically failed to acknowledge or challenge prevailing ideologies, and did not seek to identify ways to hold or governments or corporations accountable for failures. Finally, ideas and approaches seem to recur again over the decades, without adding further nuance or analysis. This suggests a need for more upstream, critical and radical approaches to achieve healthy societies.

Background  While support for the idea of fostering healthy societies is longstanding, there is a gap in the literature on what they are, how to beget them, and how experience might inform future efforts. This paper explores developments since Alma Ata (1978) to understand how a range of related concepts and fields inform approaches to healthy societies and to develop a model to help conceptualize future research and policy initiatives.Methods  Drawing on 68 purposively selected documents, including political declarations, commission and agency reports, peer-reviewed papers and guidance notes, we undertook qualitative thematic analysis. Three independent researchers compiled and categorised themes describing the domains of a potential healthy societies approach.Results  The literature provides numerous frameworks. Some of these frameworks promote alternative endpoints to development, eschewing short-term economic growth in favour of health, equity, well-being and sustainability. They also identify values, such as gender equality, collaboration, human rights and empowerment that provide the pathways to, or underpin, such endpoints. We categorize the literature into four “components”: people; places; products; and planet. People refers to social positions, interactions and networks creating well-being. Places are physical environments — built and natural — and the interests and policies shaping them. Products are commodities and commercial practices impacting population health. Planet places human health in the context of the ‘Anthropocene.’ These components interact in complex ways across global, regional, country and community levels as outlined in our heuristic.Conclusion  The literature offers little critical reflection on why greater progress has not been made, or on the need to organise and resist the prevailing systems which perpetuate ill-health.

As evidence mounts that corporate actor engagement in United Nations (UN) policy- making processes leads to weaker and shallower public health commitments, greater attention is being paid to how to minimise undue interference and manage conflicts of interest (CoI). While we welcome efforts to develop normative guidance on managing such conflicts, we argue that there is the need to go further. In particular, we propose that an index be developed that would assess the health impacts of individual corporate actors, and those actors who fail to achieve a set benchmark would not have engagement privileges. We further propose the establishment of an independent panel of experts to advise on corporate actor engagement as well as on ambiguous and potentially health- harming commitments in text under negotiation in the UN. Recognising that the implementation of such measures will be contested, we recommend a number of practical steps to make their implementation more politically palatable.

The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Agenda offers an opportunity to realise the right to health for all. The Agenda’s “interlinked and integrated” Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide the prospect of focusing attention and mobilising resources not just for the provision of health services through universal health coverage (UHC), but also for addressing the underlying social, structural, and political determinants of illness and health inequity. However, achieving the goals’ promises will require new mechanisms for inter-sectoral coordination and action, enhanced instruments for rational priority-setting that involve affected population groups, and new approaches to ensuring accountability. Rights-based approaches can inform developments in each of these areas.
In this commentary, we build upon a paper by Forman et al and propose that the significance of the SDGs lies in their ability to move beyond a biomedical approach to health and healthcare, and to seize the opportunity for the realization of the right to health in its fullest, widest, most fundamental sense: the right to a healthpromoting and health protecting environment for each and every one of us. We argue that realizing the right to health inherent in the SDG Agenda is possible but demands that we seize on a range of commitments, not least those outlined in other goals, and pursue complementary openings in the Agenda – from inclusive policy-making, to novel partnerships, to monitoring and review. It is critical that we do not risk losing the right to health in the rhetoric of the SDGs and ensure that we make good on the promise of leaving no one behind.