McIntyre Lynn, Mah Catherine L
Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
School of Health Administration, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2024;13:8565. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.8565. Epub 2024 Aug 19.
Glenn and colleagues carefully conducted a realist review of initiatives introduced in high-income countries intended to improve financial well-being (FWB) or reduce financial strain (FS) during the early days of the pandemic. They found that these initiatives were underpinned by either neoliberal or social equity ideologies, within which, social location acted on different groups. In this commentary, we suggest caution in applying labels such as neoliberalism and social equity when lumping social welfare policies; labour policies; housing and financial services policies; and service provision for health, seniors, childcare, and education across welfare state regimes. We also caution against aggregating equity-deserving groups from different contexts into a single otherness. We suggest a pragmatic reinterpretation of the study's findings and in future examinations of post-pandemic recovery in accordance with long-standing pragmatic methods of working in public health that seek to improve population health and well-being through collective action.
格伦及其同事仔细对高收入国家在疫情初期为改善财务福祉（FWB）或减轻财务压力（FS）而推出的举措进行了一项现实主义综述。他们发现，这些举措要么以新自由主义意识形态为支撑，要么以社会公平意识形态为支撑，在这些意识形态中，社会地位对不同群体产生影响。在这篇评论中，我们建议在将社会福利政策、劳工政策、住房和金融服务政策以及福利国家体制下的健康、老年人、儿童保育和教育服务提供等政策归为一类时，谨慎使用新自由主义和社会公平等标签。我们还告诫不要将来自不同背景的应获公平对待的群体归为单一的他者。我们建议根据公共卫生领域长期以来的务实工作方法，对该研究结果进行务实的重新解读，并在未来对疫情后复苏的研究中，通过集体行动来改善人群健康和福祉。
