Search

Background: Given the persistence of Indigenous health inequities across national contexts, many countries have adopted strategies to improve the health of Indigenous peoples. Governmental recognition of the unique health needs of Indigenous populations is necessary for the development of targeted programs and policies to achieve universal health coverage. At the same time, the participation of Indigenous peoples in decision-making and program and policy design helps to ensure that barriers to health services are appropriately addressed and promotes the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination. Due to similar patterns of Indigenous health and health determinants across borders, there have been calls for greater global collaboration in this field. However, most international studies on Indigenous health policy link Anglo-settler democracies (Canada, Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand and the United States), despite these countries representing a small fraction of the world's Indigenous people. Aim: This paper examines national-level policy in Australia, Brazil, Chile and New Zealand in relation to governmental recognition of differential Indigenous health needs and engagement with Indigenous peoples in health. The paper aims to examine how Indigenous health needs and engagement are addressed in national policy frameworks within each of the countries in order to contribute to the understanding of how to develop pro-equity policies within national health care systems. Methods: For each country, a review was undertaken of national policies and legislation to support engagement with, and participation of, Indigenous peoples in the identification of their health needs, development of programs and policies to address these needs and which demonstrate governmental recognition of differential Indigenous health needs. Government websites were searched as well as the following databases: Google, OpenGrey, CAB Direct, PubMed, Web of Science and WorldCat. Findings: Each of the four countries have adopted international agreements regarding the engagement of Indigenous peoples in health. However, there is significant variation in the extent to which the principles laid out in these agreements are reflected in national policy, legislation and practice. Brazil and New Zealand both have established national policies to facilitate engagement. In contrast, national policy to enable engagement is relatively lacking in Australia and Chile. Australia, Brazil and New Zealand each have significant initiatives and policy structures in place to address Indigenous health. However, in Brazil this is not necessarily reflected in practice and although New Zealand has national policies these have been recently reported as insufficient and, in fact, may be contributing to health inequity for Māori. In comparison to the other three countries, Chile has relatively few national initiatives or policies in place to support Indigenous engagement or recognise the distinct health needs of Indigenous communities. Conclusions: The adoption of international policy frameworks forms an important step in ensuring that Indigenous peoples are able to participate in the formation and implementation of health policy and programs. However, without the relevant principles being reflected in national legislature, international agreements hold little weight. At the same time, while a national legislative framework facilitates the engagement of Indigenous peoples, such policy may not necessarily translate into practice. Developing multi-level approaches that improve cohesion between international policy, national policy and practice in Indigenous engagement in health is therefore vital. Given that each of the four countries demonstrate strengths and weaknesses across this causal chain, cross-country policy examination provides guidance on strengthening these links. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an earlier paper (Dressler, 2001), I suggested that medical anthropology as a research enterprise could not ignore either meaning or structure in human social life in the production of health. Rather, drawing on the early work of Bourdieu, I argued that we need to take into account both how the world is configured by the collective meanings we impose upon it, as well as the social structural (and physical) constraints on our behaviour that exist outside those meanings. Human health can be understood, in part, as the intersection of meaning and structure. Here, my aim is to extend this perspective in three ways. Firstly, I present an expanded theoretical framework within which collectivei meaning and social structure can be conceptualised. A useful theoretical framework must take into account paradoxical features of culture, including the seeming contradiction that it is a property both of social aggregates and of individuals, and that, ultimately, social structural constraints external to individuals depend on shared meaning. Secondly, I review recent research employing this perspective conducted in Brazil, the southern United States and Puerto Rico. These studies have all employed a 'structural-constructivist' theoretical orientation, using especially the concept of 'cultural consonance', or the degree to which individuals incorporate shared meaning into their own beliefs and behaviour. Where individual efforts to attain a higher cultural consonance are frustrated by structural constraints, poor health results. Thirdly, I consider some of the policy implications of this perspective. While much work in traditional public health focuses on a highly individualised notion of meaning (as in 'health beliefs'), it seems unlikely that the health of populations can be altered substantially without taking into account the structures that constrain individual action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 31 August 2016, Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff was impeached and replaced by her vice president Michel Temer. Herein, we examine how the conservative agenda of Mr Temer and his supporters is influencing key decisions in the human rights and public health arena in Brazil. The government’s austerity agenda includes severe cuts in critical areas such as health, education and science, jeopardising well-known strategies such as the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) and nationwide cash transfer program, ‘Bolsa Familia’ - both benefited millions and were the largest of their kind in the world. Mr Temer’s decisions show not only severe cuts in critical areas but also a political agenda that clearly demonstrates a broad shift away from the progressivism and social agenda presented and supported by its predecessors. Most vulnerable groups such as the LGBTQ community, women, people who use drugs and disenfranchised communities have been severely affected. Mr Temer’s administration is putting Brazil far from its once nationwide goal to foster free and universal health care access and social equity for all its citizens. The near future for Brazil is unknown, but both national and international communities anticipate severe problems within the national human rights arena, if nothing changes. Abbreviations: CCT: Conditional Cash Transfer; LGBTQ: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (and/or Questioning); SUS: Brazilian Public Health System [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the 1990s, Brazil and Russia diverged in their policy response to AIDS. This is puzzling considering that both nations were globally integrated emerging economies transitioning to democracy. This article examines to what extent international pressures and partnerships with multilateral donors motivated these governments to increase and sustain federal spending and policy reforms. Contrary to this literature, the cases of Brazil and Russia suggest that these external factors were not important in achieving these outcomes. Furthermore, it is argued that Brazil's policy response was eventually stronger than Russia's and that it had more to do with domestic political and social factors: specifically, AIDS officials’ efforts to cultivate a strong partnership with NGOs, the absence of officials’ moral discriminatory outlook towards the AIDS community, and the government's interest in using policy reform as a means to bolster its international reputation in health. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: In the United States (US) and Brazil, obesity has emerged as a health epidemic. This article is driven by the following research questions: how did the US and Brazil's federal institutions respond to obesity? And how did these responses affect policy implementation? The aim of this article is therefore to conduct a comparative case study analysis of how these nations' institutions responded in order to determine the key lessons learned. Methods: This study uses primary and secondary qualitative data to substantiate causal arguments and factual claims. Results: Brazil shows that converting preexisting federal agencies working in primary healthcare to emphasize the provision of obesity prevention services can facilitate policy implementation, especially in rural areas. Brazil also reveals the importance of targeting federal grant support to the highest obesity prevalence areas and imposing grant conditionalities, while illustrating how the incorporation of social health movements into the bureaucracy facilitates the early adoption of nutrition and obesity policies. None of these reforms were pursued in the US. Conclusions: Brazil's government has engaged in innovative institutional conversion processes aiding its ability to sustain its centralized influence when implementing obesity policy. The US government's adoption of Brazil's institutional innovations may help to strengthen its policy response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do governments pursue obesity legislation? And is the case of Brazil unique compared with other nations when considering the politics of policy reform? Using a nested analytic approach to comparative research, I found that theoretical frameworks accounting for why nations implement obesity legislation were not sup ported with cross-national statistical evidence. I then turned to the case of Brazil's response to obesity at three levels of government, national, urban, and rural, to propose alternative hypotheses for why nations pursue obesity policy. The case of Brazil suggests that the reasons that governments respond are different at these three levels. International forces, historical institutions, and social health movements were factors that prompted national government responses. At the urban and rural government levels, receiving federal financial assistance and human resource support appeared to be more important. The case of Brazil suggests that the international and domestic politics of responding to obesity are highly complex and that national and subnational political actors have different perceptions and interests when pursuing obesity legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]