Search

This paper considers what concept of accommodation is necessary to identify and address discrimination, disadvantages and disparities in such a way that the plurality of religious people with their beliefs, values and practices may be justly accommodated in healthcare. It evaluates threats to the possibility of such accommodation pertaining by considering what beliefs and practices might increase the risk of unjust discrimination against and disadvantage for religious people, whether as individuals or as groups; and the risk of disparities between the care provided to religious people. The claim is that there is an important cluster of risks that are political in kind and emergent within philosophical bioethics. While not amounting (yet) to a trend, they are sufficiently threatening to a just civic life for patients and healthcare staff as to warrant scrutiny. After an Introductory Section 1, Section 2 evaluates a criticism of 'accommodation' and the apparently additional health‐related requirements that those of religious faith demand, when compared with other people. It does so by comparing Lori Beaman's idea of agonism with that of a distinct and somewhat complementary approach in Jonathan Chaplin's political philosophy, before examining the role of established religion in setting the conditions for the accommodation of religion and belief in healthcare. Section 3 examines risks to such accommodation by engaging critically with three health‐related instantiations of political philosophy that differ radically from both Beaman and Chaplin. A concluding Section 4 focusses on appropriate modes of communicating about religious and other beliefs in healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Migrant and ethnic inequalities in maternal and perinatal mortality persist across high‐income countries. Addressing social adversity and inequities across the childbirth trajectory cannot be left to chance and the good intentions of practitioners. Robust, evidence‐based tools designed to address inequity by enhancing both the quality of provision and the experience of care are needed. Methods: An inductive modelling approach was used to develop a new evidence‐based conceptual model of woman–midwife relationships, drawing on data from an ethnographic study of relationships between migrant Pakistani women and midwives, conducted between 2013 and 2016 in South Wales, UK. Key analytic themes from early data were translated into social–ecological concepts, and a model was developed to represent how these key themes interacted to influence the woman–midwife relationship. Results: Three key concepts influencing the woman–midwife relationship were developed from the three major themes of the underpinning research: (1) Healthcare System; (2) Culture and Religion; and (3) Family Relationships. Two additional weaving concepts appeared to act as a link between these three key concepts: (1) Authoritative Knowledge and (2) Communication of Information. Social and political factors were also considered as contextual factors within the model. A visual representation of this model was developed and presented. Conclusions: The model presented in this paper, along with future work to further test and refine it in other contexts, has the potential to impact on inequalities by facilitating future discussion on cultural issues, encouraging collaborative learning and knowledge production and providing a framework for future global midwifery practice, education and research. Patient or Public Contribution: At the outset of the underpinning research, a project involvement group was created to contribute to study design and conduct. This group consisted of the three authors, an Advocacy Officer at Race Equality First and an NHS Consultant Midwife. This group met regularly throughout the research process, and members were involved in discussions regarding ethical/cultural/social issues, recruitment methods, the creation of participant information materials, interpretation of data and the dissemination strategy. Ideas for the underpinning research were also discussed with members of the Pakistani community during community events and at meetings with staff from minority ethnic and migrant support charities (BAWSO, Race Equality First, The Mentor Ring). Local midwives contributed to study design through conversations during informal observations of antenatal appointments for asylum seekers and refugees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evaluations of health interventions for Indigenous peoples rarely report outcomes that reflect participant and community perspectives of their experiences. Inclusion of such data may provide a fuller picture of the impact of health programmes and improve the usefulness of evaluation assessments. Aim: To describe stakeholder perspectives and experiences of the implementation and impact of Indigenous health programmes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies evaluating complex health interventions designed for Indigenous communities in high‐income countries. We searched 6 electronic databases (through to January 2020): MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EconLit and CINAHL and hand‐searched reference lists of relevant articles. Results: From 28 studies involving 677 stakeholders (mostly clinical staff and participants), six main themes were identified: enabling engagement, regaining control of health, improving social health and belonging, preserving community and culture, cultivating hope for a better life, and threats to long‐term programme viability. Conclusion: The prominence of social, emotional and spiritual well‐being as important aspects of the health journey for participants in this review highlights the need to reframe evaluations of health programmes implemented in Indigenous communities away from assessments that focus on commonly used biomedical measures. Evaluators, in consultation with the community, should consistently assess the capacity of health professionals to meet community needs and expectations throughout the life of the programme. Evaluations that include qualitative data on participant and community‐level outcomes can improve decision‐makers' understanding of the impact that health programmes have on communities. Patient or public contribution: This paper is a review of evaluation studies and did not involve patients or the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]