| Literature DB >> 22666185 |
Georgios Gavriilidis1, Per-Olof Östergren.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Policies that empower individuals and communities may be appropriate for public health, and more broadly. Simple, transparent and acceptable tools are therefore required to evaluate policies from an empowerment perspective. In 2008, the South African Department of Health (DOHSA) drafted a policy to endorse the integration of African Traditional Medicine (ATM) into the public health sector, following the World Health Organization's (WHO) long-standing directives.Entities:
Keywords: Policy Empowerment Index; South Africa; empowerment; evaluation; traditional medicine
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22666185 PMCID: PMC3365441 DOI: 10.3402/gha.v5i0.17271
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Action ISSN: 1654-9880 Impact factor: 2.640
PEI evaluation of SA's ATM policy
| Questions | Standards (scores) | ATM PEI score (range) | Comments/ References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | How many policy-affected constituents are informed and concerned with the problem being addressed? | <10% (1), 10–50% (2), 50–75% (3), 75–90% (4), 90–100% (5) of constituents | 4 (3–5) | Over 80% of S. Africans use ATM ( |
| 2 | How was the policy agenda set? | It was set by: experts: centrally (1), multi-level or peripherally (2), or mixed (experts and lay representatives): centrally (3), multi-level (4), peripherally (5) | 1 | International agenda setting ( |
| 3 | How was the policy planned? | It was designed by: experts: centrally (1), multi-level or peripherally (2), or mixed (experts and lay representatives): centrally (3), multi-level (4), peripherally (5) | 1 | Expert committee ( |
| 4 | What proportion of the policy measures are delegated peripherally for implementation? | <10% (1), 10–50% (2), 50–75% (3), 75–90% (4), 90–100% (5) | 1 | Central implementation ( |
| 5 | Does the policy call for education/training of constituents affected? | <10% (1), 10–50% (2), 50–75% (3), 75–90% (4), 90–100% (5) of constituents | 2 (1–3) | For a significant minority ( |
| 6 | Are peripheral employment opportunities and entrepreneurship being enhanced? | Employment/entrepreneurship for <1% (1), limited employment for 1–10% (2), wide employment for >10% (3), some entrepreneurship and self-employment for 1–10% (4), broad entrepreneurship and self-employment for >10% (5) of constituents | 4 (3–5) | ATM employs locally ( |
| 7 | Does the policy promote constituent participation in networks? | Any for <1% (1), indirectly for 1–10% (2) or for >10% (3), explicitly/directly for 1–10% (4), or for >10% (5) of constituents | 2 (1–3) | Indirectly for THP, other health workers, patients? ( |
| 8 | Are hard to reach, vulnerable or disadvantaged populations being considered and affirmatively protected and empowered (including vulnerable gender and age groups, socially/physically/economically disadvantaged individuals, groups and communities)? | Yes, any for <1% (1), indirectly for 1–10% (2) or for >10% (3), explicitly/directly for 1–10% (4), or for >10% (5) of vulnerable constituents (including women, the elderly, children, people with disabilities, displaced/immigrants) | 2 (1–3) | ATM enhances access to health ( |
| 9 | Does the policy provide for adequate financial, human and other resources? | Inadequate: central (1), mixed or peripheral (2) or adequate: central (3), mixed (4), peripheral (5) | 2 (1–3) | Central financing, ATM is a peripheral resource ( |
| 10 | Will the policy be evaluated formatively? | No (1) or evaluated by: central: quantitative methods (2), quantitative/qualitative (3) or peripheral: quantitative (4), quantitative/qualitative/participatory (5) | 2 (1–3) | Through academic, quantitative research ( |
| 11 | Is the policy adaptable? | Inflexibly: centrally (1), mixed or peripherally (2), or flexibly: centrally (3), peripherally (4), mixed (5) | 2 (1–3) | Not predicted, dependable. ( |
| 12 | How empowering are associated policies? | The policy is mainly related with dictative (1), directive (2), supportive (3), enabling (4), empowering (5) policies | 2 (1–3) | Directive policy environment. ( |
| Result | Non-applicable or negative | 0 | Supportive | |
| PEI score | 42% | (directive-supportive) | ||
| Range | 27–57 |
Notes: Policy types according to PEI: 0–20%: ‘dictative’, 21–40%: ‘directive’, 41–60%: ‘supportive’, 61–80%: ‘enabling’, 81–100%: ‘empowering’.