Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK; Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Mar;272:113594. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113594. Epub 2020 Dec 11.
Rising concerns around antimicrobial resistance (AMR) have led to a renewed push to rationalise antibiotic prescribing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is increasing unease in conceptualising antibiotic use as individuals behaving '(ir)rationally' and recognition that rising use is emergent of and contributing to wider economic and political challenges. But in between these individual and societal 'drivers' of antibiotic use is an everyday articulation of care through these substances, written-in to the scripts, delivery chains and pedagogics of global healthcare. This article focuses on this everyday 'architecture' that over time and across spaces has knitted-in antibiotics and rhetorics of control that inform current responses to AMR. Based on historically informed ethnographic research in Zimbabwe, we examine points of continuity and change between 20th Century rational drug use (RDU) discourses and contemporary socio-political formations around AMR and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS), paying particular attention to their co-evolution with the process of pharmaceuticalisation. We illustrate how the framework and techniques of RDU were embedded within programmes to increase access to essential medicines and as such complemented the building of one of Africa's strongest postcolonial health systems in Zimbabwe. Whilst 20th Century RDU was focused on securing the health and safety of patients and affordability for systems, AMS programmes aim to secure medicines. Continuous through both RDU and AMS programmes is the persistent rhetoric of 'irrational use'. Health workers in Harare, attuned to the values and language of these programmes, enact in their everyday practice an architecture in which antibiotics have been designed-in. This research illustrates the struggle to optimise antibiotic use within current framings for action. We propose a reconfiguring of the architecture of global health such that frontline prescribers are able to provide 'good' care without necessarily turning to antibiotics. To design-out antibiotic reliance would require attention beyond '(ir)rationality', to the redrafting of blueprints that inscribe practice.
日益增长的对抗生素耐药性(AMR)的担忧促使人们重新推动在中低收入国家(LMICs)合理使用抗生素。人们越来越不安地将抗生素的使用概念化为个人行为的“(不)理性”,并认识到抗生素使用的增加是新兴的,也是更广泛的经济和政治挑战的促成因素。但是,在抗生素使用的这些个体和社会“驱动因素”之间,是通过这些物质进行日常护理的表达,这些物质被写入了全球医疗保健的剧本、供应链和教学法中。本文重点关注这种随着时间的推移和跨越空间而编织在一起的抗生素以及控制修辞的日常“架构”,这些架构构成了当前对抗生素耐药性的反应。本文基于我们在津巴布韦进行的具有历史意义的民族志研究,考察了 20 世纪合理用药(RDU)话语与当前围绕抗生素耐药性和抗菌药物管理(AMS)的社会政治格局之间的连续性和变化点,特别关注它们与药物化过程的共同演变。我们说明了 RDU 的框架和技术是如何嵌入到增加获取基本药物的项目中的,从而补充了津巴布韦建立非洲最强的后殖民卫生系统之一的过程。虽然 20 世纪的 RDU 侧重于确保患者的健康和安全以及系统的可负担性,但 AMS 计划旨在确保药物的可获得性。在 RDU 和 AMS 计划中,一直存在对抗生素“不合理使用”的持续修辞。哈拉雷的卫生工作者对这些项目的价值观和语言很敏感,他们在日常实践中实施了一种设计抗生素的架构。这项研究说明了在当前行动框架内优化抗生素使用的困难。我们建议重新配置全球卫生架构,以便一线处方者能够在不需要抗生素的情况下提供“良好”的护理。要消除对抗生素的依赖,就需要超越“(不)理性”,关注重新起草将实践铭刻其中的蓝图。