| Literature DB >> 34849899 |
Teurai Rwafa-Ponela1,2, Jane Goudge1, Nicola Christofides3.
Abstract
Despite international recognition of health promotion (HP) as a cost-effective way to improve population health, it is not highly regarded nor is it sufficiently institutionalized in many health systems. This diminishes its ability to deliver on its public health promises. This paper examined the role of organizational structure and human agency within the South African health system (drawing on Giddens's structuration theory) in determining the extent of, and barriers to, the institutionalization of HP. We conducted a qualitative case study using a combination of in-depth interviews (n = 37), key informant interviews (n = 8) and one-day workshops (n = 5) with Department of Health (DoH) staff (HP and non-HP personnel) from national, provincial and district levels as well as external HP stakeholders. Within the South African health system, there are dedicated HP staffs, with no specified professional competencies or a coherent hierarchy of job titles. Allocated HP resources were frequently shifted to other programmes. This resulted in a disconnect between national and provincial levels, which impeded communication and opportunity to develop a shared vision and coherent programme. We found some examples of successful HP organization and implementation practices, such as the tobacco control legislation. Overall, HP staff had limited agency and were often unable to articulate the vision for HP. Uncertainty about the role of HP has led to powerlessness, and feelings of resentment have generated demotivation and moral distress. HP voices were seldom heard and were repressed by dominant curative-focused structures. If leaders of HP continue to be embedded in such an institution, there is little chance of driving an effective HP agenda. Therefore, there is a need to engage policy-makers to integrate HP into the health system fabric. Establishment of an independent HP foundation could be one mechanism to drive multi-sectoral collaboration, contribute to evidence-based HP research and further develop health in all policies through advocacy.Entities:
Keywords: Health promotion; South Africa; health department; institutionalization; structure and agency
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34849899 PMCID: PMC8633645 DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czab086
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Policy Plan ISSN: 0268-1080 Impact factor: 3.344
Figure 1.Structuration theory adapted from (Giddens, 1991)
Figure 2.Sampling of study sites, (n = 28)
Participant demographics and study identifiers
| Data source | Study ID | Participants | Number | Sex | Highest and lowest qualifications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| External |
| Key HP stakeholders | 7 | 3 male | PhD |
| National |
|
| 2 | 1 male | Masters |
| HP Directorate staff | 5 | All female | Masters | ||
| Provincial |
| Provincial HP Managers | 3 | All female | Masters |
| District |
| District HP coordinators | 2 | 1 male | Diploma |
| Sub-district |
| Sub-district HP coordinators | 5 | 3 male | Diploma |
| Facility |
| Facility managers | 13 | 2 male | Masters |
|
| Health promoters | 12 | All female | Diploma | |
| Workshops (national-district) |
| HP managers | 28 | 10 male | Masters |
Recruited as a senior DoH official key informant. Note: AP signifies a participant from Province A, and BP denotes a participant from Province B. The meaning of each participant ID is provided under the study identifier column.
Figure 3.Mix of data collection methods and sampling
Figure 4.Structure–agency in the institutionalization of HP within DoH