Power is a critical concept to understand and transform health policy and systems. Power manifests implicitly or explicitly at multiple levels-local, national and global-and is present at each actor interface, therefore shaping all actions, processes and outcomes. Analysing and engaging with power has important potential for improving our understanding of the underlying causes of inequity, and our ability to promote transparency, accountability and fairness. However, the study and analysis of the role of power in health policy and systems, particularly in the context of low- and middle-income countries, has been lacking. In order to facilitate greater engagement with the concept of power among researchers and practitioners in the health systems and policy realm, we share a broad overview of the concept of power, and list 10 excellent resources on power in health policy and systems in low- and middle-income countries, covering exemplary frameworks, commentaries and empirical work. We undertook a two-stage process to identify these resources. First, we conducted a collaborative exercise involving crowdsourcing and participatory validation, resulting in 24 proposed articles. Second, we conducted a structured literature review in four phases, resulting in 38 articles reviewed. We present the 10 selected resources in the following categories to bring out key facets of the literature on power and health policy and systems-(1) Resources that provide an overarching conceptual exploration into how power shapes health policy and systems, and how to investigate it; and (2) examples of strong empirical work on power and health policy and systems research representing various levels of analyses, geographic regions and conceptual understandings of power. We conclude with a brief discussion of key gaps in the literature, and suggestions for additional methodological approaches to study power.

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

BackgroundHealth inequalities disproportionally affect indigenous people in Guatemala. Previous studies have noted that the disadvantageous situation of indigenous people is the result of complex and structural elements such as social exclusion, racism and discrimination. These elements need to be addressed in order to tackle the social determinants of health. This research was part of a larger participatory collaboration between Centro de Estudios para la Equidad y Gobernanza en los Servicios de Salud (CEGSS) and community based organizations aiming to implement social accountability in rural indigenous municipalities of Guatemala. Discrimination while seeking health care services in public facilities was ranked among the top three problems by communities and that should be addressed in the social accountability intervention. This study aimed to understand and categorize the episodes of discrimination as reported by indigenous communities.MethodsA participatory approach was used, involving CEGSS’s researchers and field staff and community leaders. One focus group in one rural village of 13 different municipalities was implemented. Focus groups were aimed at identifying instances of mistreatment in health care services and documenting the account of those who were affected or who witnessed them. All of the 132 obtained episodes were transcribed and scrutinized using a thematic analysis.ResultsEpisodes described by participants ranged from indifference to violence (psychological, symbolic, and physical), including coercion, mockery, deception and racism. Different expressions of discrimination and mistreatment associated to poverty, language barriers, gender, ethnicity and social class were narrated by participants.ConclusionsAddressing mistreatment in public health settings will involve tackling the prevalent forms of discrimination, including racism. This will likely require profound, complex and sustained interventions at the programmatic and policy levels beyond the strict realm of public health services. Future studies should assess the magnitude of the occurrence of episodes of maltreatment and racism within indigenous areas and also explore the providers’ perceptions about the problem.

The 400 million indigenous people worldwide represent a wealth of linguistic and cultural diversity, as well as traditional knowledge and sustainable practices that are invaluable resources for human development. However, indigenous people remain on the margins of society in high, middle and low-income countries, and they bear a disproportionate burden of poverty, disease, and mortality compared to the general population. These inequalities have persisted, and in some countries have even worsened, despite the overall improvements in health indicators in relation to the 15-year push to meet the Millennium Development Goals. As we enter the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) era, there is growing consensus that efforts to achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and promote sustainable development should be guided by the moral imperative to improve equity. To achieve this, we need to move beyond the reductionist tendency to frame indigenous health as a problem of poor health indicators to be solved through targeted service delivery tactics and move towards holistic, integrated approaches that address the causes of inequalities both inside and outside the health sector. To meet the challenge of engaging with the conditions underlying inequalities and promoting transformational change, equity-oriented research and practice in the field of indigenous health requires: engaging power, context-adapted strategies to improve service delivery, and mobilizing networks of collective action. The application of systems thinking approaches offers a pathway for the evolution of equity-oriented research and practice in collaborative, politically informed and mutually enhancing efforts to understand and transform the systems that generate and reproduce inequities in indigenous health. These approaches hold the potential to strengthen practice through the development of more nuanced, context-sensitive strategies for redressing power imbalances, reshaping the service delivery environment and fostering the dynamics of collective action for political reform.

This editorial was published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization [© 2013 Bulletin of the World Health Organization] and the definite version is available at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/91/1/12-115808/en

Social participation has been understood in many different ways, and there are even typologies classifying participation by the degree of a population's control in decision making. Participation can vary from a symbolic act, which does not involve decision making, to processes in which it constitutes the principal tool for redistributing power within a population. This article argues that analyzing social participation from a perspective of power relations requires knowledge of the historical, social, and economic processes that have characterized the social relations in a specific context. Applying such an analysis to Guatemala reveals asymmetrical power relations characterized by a long history of repression and political violence. The armed conflict during the second half of the 20th century had devastating consequences for a large portion of the population as well as the country's social leadership. The ongoing violence resulted in negative psychosocial effects among the population, including mistrust toward institutions and low levels of social and political participation. Although Guatemala made progress in creating spaces for social participation in public policy after signing the Peace Accords in 1996, the country still faces after-effects of the conflict. One important task for the organizations that work in the field of health and the right to health is to help regenerate the social fabric and to rebuild trust between the state and its citizens. Such regeneration involves helping the population gain the skills, knowledge, and information needed in order to participate in and affect formal political processes that are decided and promoted by various public entities, such as the legislative and executive branches, municipal governments, and political parties. This process also applies to other groups that build citizenship through participation, such as neighborhood organizations and school and health committees.

No abstract

No abstract