Why does a public health issue (not) get priority? Agenda setting for the national burns programme in India
Saved in:
| Title: | Why does a public health issue (not) get priority? Agenda setting for the national burns programme in India |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Keshri, VR, Jagnoor, J, Peden, M, Norton, R, Abimbola, S |
| Source: | Health Policy Plan |
| Publisher Information: | Oxford University Press (OUP), 2024. |
| Publication Year: | 2024 |
| Subject Terms: | decentralization, policy analysis, injury, 8.1 Organisation and delivery of services, India, and research governance, anzsrc-for: 4206 Public Health, 8.3 Policy, policy process, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, agenda setting, Humans, anzsrc-for: 44 Human Society, 4407 Policy and Administration, Policy Making, anzsrc-for: 1606 Political Science, 44 Human Society, Retrospective Studies, anzsrc-for: 42 Health Sciences, Health Priorities, Health Policy, 42 Health Sciences, anzsrc-for: 1605 Policy and Administration, anzsrc-for: 4407 Policy and Administration, ethics, governance, anzsrc-for: 4203 Health services and systems, 4206 Public Health, Original Article, Public Health, Burns, 0305 other medical science, anzsrc-for: 1117 Public Health and Health Services |
| Description: | 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. |
| Document Type: | Article Other literature type |
| Language: | English |
| ISSN: | 1460-2237 |
| DOI: | 10.1093/heapol/czae019 |
| Access URL: | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38511492 |
| Rights: | CC BY NC URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site–for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com. |
| Accession Number: | edsair.doi.dedup.....82a14278aba56c1e34418b3854feaadb |
| Database: | OpenAIRE |
Full Text 
Full Text Finder 
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstract: | 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 14602237 |
| DOI: | 10.1093/heapol/czae019 |