Power Dynamics Among Health Professionals in Nigeria: A Case Study of the Global Fund Policy Process

"Opportunities and responsibilities": how do pharmacists assess their professionalism?

INTRODUCTION

Professionalism is fundamental to the existence of professions. In pharmacy, interest in this theme improved with events that examined the resocialization of pharmacists in care. With this, evaluating professionalism can help the operationalization of the theme and, consequently, the development of strategies for pharmacy consolidation before its challenges. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the professionalism of Brazilian pharmacists.

METHODS

To meet the objective, a cross-sectional study was conducted between March 2022 and August 2023. Data were collected using the Brazilian version of the "Modification of Hall's Professionalism Scale for Use with Pharmacists". The scale has 39 items grouped into the domains: autonomy, vocation, professional council, self-regulation, continuing education, and altruism. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and an ANOVA analysis of variance with post-hoc Hochberg or Games-Howell tests with Bootstrapping was conducted to verify differences between groups.

RESULTS

600 pharmacists participated in this study. The majority (69%) was female and carried out their professional activities in community pharmacies (50%). Professionalism scores ranged between 14 and 29 points, with an average of 22.8 points. Pharmacists working in outpatient clinics had higher scores in most factors, namely, altruism, continuing education, professional council, vocation, and autonomy. This indicates that the inclination of pharmacists to occupy areas focused on care can be significant to assess professionalism.

CONCLUSIONS

The data obtained indicate that pharmacists working in outpatient clinics had higher professionalism scores compared to others. This corroborates the worldwide trend experienced by pharmacy in recent decades, which is the execution of increasingly patient-centered practice models.

Situating Biomedical and Professional Monopoly at the Intersections of Structural, Ideational and Agentic Power Comment on "Power Dynamics Among Health Professionals in Nigeria: A Case Study of the Global Fund Policy Process"

Lassa and colleagues' study is a strong commentary on the biomedical hegemony and professional monopoly of medical doctors in the policy landscape of the Global Fund in Nigeria. Situating this critical dimension of professional power within wider scholarship of power and governance of global health initiatives (such as the Global Fund), in this comment, I put forth two core arguments. I call for a relational perspective of power in a dynamic policy space that the Fund characterises. I argue that a systems-view analysis of power requires a thorough examination of subsystems, how they interact, and the diverse forms of power-individual agentic, ideational, and structural-and the mechanisms through which power is wielded. The lens of governmentality allows linking individual (expertise and practices) with institutional regimes and social practices these enable; and in examining the interface of local/ sub-national, national, and global within which policy formulation and implementation occurs.

The Dynamics of Power Flow From the Global Health Financing Comment on "Power Dynamics Among Health Professionals in Nigeria: A Case Study of the Global Fund Policy Process"

This article agrees with Lassa et al that biomedical paradigms and medical professionals are a dominating force within the policy dynamics of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) and that there needs to be greater community involvement in how global health initiatives (GHIs) are adopted, designed, implemented and evaluated. However, we argue that many of the conditions identified are entrenched and perpetuated by how GHIs are financed and the financing modalities employed in Development Aid for Health (DAH), particularly in low resource settings. As a result, the dynamics of power not only flow from traditionally entrenched epistemic authorities but are disproportionally sustained by global health financing modalities that favour particular GHIs over others. As we argue, these DAH modalities can exert forms of power with problematic effects on policy-making.

Coloniality, Elite Networks and Intersectionality: Key Concepts in Understanding Biomedical Power and Equity in Health Policy Processes Comment on "Power Dynamics Among Health Professionals in Nigeria: A Case Study of the Global Fund Policy Process"

To understand the role of power in health policy processes in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) contexts, it is necessary to engage with global and local power structures and their historical contexts. In this commentary, we outline three dimensions that shape a dominant power in health policy processes-the biomedical power. We propose that understanding the linkages between medical power and colonialism; the close connection of public health, medicine and elite networks; and the intersectionalities that shape the powers of medical professionals can offer the means to examine the biomedical hegemony in health policy processes. Additionally we suggest that a more nuanced understanding of the interaction of local powers with global funding can offer some entry points to achieving more equitable and interdisciplinary health policy processes in LMICs.

Medical Dominance in Global Health Institutions as an Obstacle to Equity and Effectiveness Comment on "Power Dynamics Among Health Professionals in Nigeria: A Case Study of the Global Fund Policy Process"

Medical professionals exercised structural and productive power in the Global Fund's Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM) in Nigeria, directly impacting the selection of approaches to HIV/AIDS care, as described in a case study by Lassa and colleagues. This research contributes to a robust scholarship on how biomedical power inhibits a holistic understanding of health and prevents the adoption of solutions that are socially grounded, multi-disciplinary, and co-created with communities. We highlight Lassa and colleagues' findings demonstrating the 'long arm' of global health institutions in country-level health policy choices, and reflect on how medical dominance within global institutions serves as a tool of control in ways that pervert incentives and undermine equity and effectiveness. We call for increased research and advocacy to surface these conduits of power and begin to loosen their hold in the global health policy agenda.