Institute of Development Studies, Library Road, Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, BN1 9RE, UK.
Independent Consultant, 357 Sixth Ave, Brooklyn, NY, 11215, USA.
Int J Equity Health. 2022 Sep 16;21(1):136. doi: 10.1186/s12939-022-01731-3.
This paper presents the results of a scoping review that examines the extent to which legal empowerment has been used as a strategy in efforts to improve access to quality health services in low- and middle-income countries. The review identifies lessons learned regarding legal empowerment program strategy, as well as impact on health empowerment and health outcomes, research gaps, areas of consensus and tension in the field.The review included three main sources of data: 1) peer-reviewed literature, 2) grey literature, and 3) interviews with key legal empowerment stakeholders. Peer-reviewed and grey literature were identified via keyword searches, and interviewees were identified by searching an organizational database and snowball sampling.The key findings were: first, there is very limited documentation on the use of legal empowerment strategies for improving health services. Second, the legal empowerment approach tends to be focussed on issues that communities themselves prioritize, often narrowly defined local challenges. However, legal empowerment as a strategy that pursues collective and individual remedies has the potential to contribute to structural change. Third, for this potential to be realised, legal empowerment entails building capacity of service providers and other duty bearers on health and related rights. Finally, the review also highlights the importance of trust-trust in state institutions, trust in the paralegals who support the process and trust in the channels of engagement with public authorities for grievance redress.Several gaps also became evident through the review, including lack of work on private health providers, lack of discussion of the 'empowerment' effects of legal empowerment programs, and limited exploration of risk and sustainability. The paper concludes with a caution that practitioners need to start with the health challenges they are trying to address, and then assess whether legal empowerment is an appropriate approach, rather than seeing it as a silver bullet.
本文介绍了一项范围界定审查的结果,该审查考察了在努力改善中低收入国家获得优质卫生服务的途径中,法律赋权作为一种策略的使用程度。该审查确定了关于法律赋权计划战略的经验教训,以及对健康赋权和健康结果的影响、研究空白、该领域的共识和紧张领域。该审查包括三个主要数据来源:1)同行评议文献,2)灰色文献,3)与主要法律赋权利益相关者的访谈。同行评议和灰色文献通过关键词搜索确定,访谈通过搜索组织数据库和滚雪球抽样确定。主要发现如下:首先,关于利用法律赋权战略改善卫生服务的文献非常有限。其次,法律赋权方法往往侧重于社区自身优先考虑的问题,通常是狭义的地方挑战。然而,作为追求集体和个人补救措施的战略,法律赋权有可能促进结构性变革。第三,为了实现这一潜力,法律赋权需要在卫生和相关权利方面增强服务提供者和其他责任人的能力。最后,审查还强调了信任的重要性——对国家机构的信任、对支持该过程的法律助理的信任以及对与公共当局接触以解决申诉的渠道的信任。通过审查还明显发现了几个空白,包括缺乏对私立卫生提供者的工作、缺乏对法律赋权计划“赋权”效果的讨论以及对风险和可持续性的有限探索。本文最后谨慎地指出,从业者需要从他们试图解决的卫生挑战入手,然后评估法律赋权是否是一种适当的方法,而不是将其视为万能药。