Organizational structure and human agency within the South African health system: a qualitative case study of health promotion
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".