Community mobilization during epidemic emergencies: Insights from Kerala
04 Mar 2021-Qualitative Social Work (SAGE PublicationsSage UK: London, England)-Vol. 20, pp 336-342
Abstract: The present paper describes the strategy to mitigate and control epidemic contingencies in the backdrop of Kerala’s Covid-19 containment plan. I have purposefully selected Kerala, the southernmost ...
Håvard Aaslund1•Institutions (1)
04 Mar 2021-Qualitative Social Work
Abstract: The article discusses the strict measures taken in response to Covid-19 initially seemed to have popular support among the population in countries Topics include policies of social distancing, lockdowns and control have been met with public acceptance and informal policing has occurred through moral rhetoric;and global national responses to the pandemic have not been uniform
TL;DR: It is suggested that COVID-19 requires us to prioritize and mobilize as a research and clinical community around several key areas: (a) diagnostics, (b) prevention, (c) public outreach and communication, (d) working with medical staff and mainstreaming into nonmental health services, and (e) CO VID-19-specific trauma research.
Abstract: THE ISSUE: Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) is transforming every aspect of our lives. Identified in late 2019, COVID-19 quickly became characterized as a global pandemic by March of 2020. Given the rapid acceleration of transmission, and the lack of preparedness to prevent and treat this virus, the negative impacts of COVID-19 are rippling through every facet of society. Although large numbers of people throughout the world will show resilience to the profound loss, stress, and fear associated with COVID-19, the virus will likely exacerbate existing mental health disorders and contribute to the onset of new stress-related disorders for many. RECOMMENDATIONS: The field of traumatic stress should address the serious needs that will emerge now and well into the future. However, we propose that these efforts may be limited, in part, by ongoing gaps that exist within our research and clinical care. In particular, we suggest that COVID-19 requires us to prioritize and mobilize as a research and clinical community around several key areas: (a) diagnostics, (b) prevention, (c) public outreach and communication, (d) working with medical staff and mainstreaming into nonmental health services, and (e) COVID-19-specific trauma research. As members of our community begin to rapidly develop and test interventions for COVID-19-related distress, we hope that those in positions of leadership in the field of traumatic stress consider limits of our current approaches, and invest the intellectual and financial resources urgently needed in order to innovate, forge partnerships, and develop the technologies to support those in greatest need. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Liz Beddoe1•Institutions (1)
01 Jan 2013-Qualitative Social Work
TL;DR: Findings reveal practitioner concern that the knowledge claim of social work is weak and this impacts on their professional identity and status in multidisciplinary institutional settings.
Abstract: Social workers in health care often argue that they must be professionally assertive in order to keep their values afloat in a stormy sea of change. The practice of health social work has tradition...
01 Mar 2000-Health Policy and Planning
TL;DR: Kerala's development experience has been distinguished by the primacy of the social sectors, and current legislation, which has brought government health institutions under local government control, can perhaps facilitate this change by helping to improve standards in public institutions.
Abstract: Kerala's development experience has been distinguished by the primacy of the social sectors. Traditionally, education and health accounted for the greatest shares of the state government's expenditure. Health sector spending continued to grow even after 1980 when generally the fiscal deficit in the state budget was growing and government was looking for ways to control expenditure. But growth in the number of beds and institutions in the public sector had slowed down by the mid-1980s. From 1986-1996, growth in the private sector surpassed that in the public sector by a wide margin. Public sector spending reveals that in recent years, expansion has been limited to revenue expenditure rather than capital, and salaries at the cost of supplies. Many developments outside health, such as growing literacy, increasing household incomes and population ageing (leading to increased numbers of people with chronic afflictions), probably fueled the demand for health care already created by the increased access to health facilities. Since the government institutions could not grow in number and quality at a rate that would have satisfied this demand, health sector development in Kerala after the mid-1980s has been dominated by the private sector. Expansion in private facilities in health has been closely linked to developments in the government health sector. Public institutions play by far the dominant role in training personnel. They have also sensitized people to the need for timely health interventions and thus helped to create demand. At this point in time, the government must take the lead in quality maintenance and setting of standards. Current legislation, which has brought government health institutions under local government control, can perhaps facilitate this change by helping to improve standards in public institutions.
01 May 2020-Lancet Infectious Diseases
01 Jan 2003-Journal of Contemporary Asia
Abstract: Scholars have variously described the development experience of the Indian state of Kerala as a “model” or a “paradox” or an “enigma” and posited different meanings and significance to its developmental trajectory. Rather than following the usual one-dimensional accounting of Kerala's achievements and shortcomings, we present a historically informed social and political analysis to reveal the meaning and significance of the “Kerala model” of development. This article, thus, critically appraises Kerala's development experience since decolonization to show how the discourse on development and the discursive practices of the dominant actors involved in governance of Kerala diverge in recent years, especially after the second round of economic liberalizations at the national level in 1991, which coincidently corresponds to the beginning of the newest phase of economic globalization. Old lessons are reviewed based on the notion of replicability of the “Kerala model” and new lessons are analyzed within...