Implementing and monitoring the right to health in breast cancer: selection of indicators using a Delphi process.

BACKGROUND: Women with breast cancer have different chances of surviving their disease, depending on where they live. Variations in survival may stem from unequal access to prompt diagnosis, treatment and care. Implementation of the right to health may help remedy such inequalities. The right to health is enshrined in international human rights law, notably Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. A human rights-based approach to health requires a robust, just and efficient health system, with access to adequate health services and medicines on a non-discriminatory basis. However, it may prove challenging for health policymakers and cancer management specialists to implement and monitor this right in national health systems. METHOD: This article presents the results of a Delphi study designed to select indicators of implementation of the right to health to inform breast cancer care and management. In a systematic process, 13 experts examined an initial list of 151 indicators. RESULTS: After two rounds, 54 indicators were selected by consensus, three were rejected, three were added, and 97 remained open for debate. For breast cancer, right-to-health features selected as worth implementing and monitoring included the formal recognition of the right to health in breast cancer strategies; a population-based screening programme, prompt diagnosis, strong referral systems and limited waiting times; the provision of palliative, survivorship and end-of-life care; the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality (AAAQ) of breast cancer services and medicines; the provision of a system of accountability; and the collection of anonymised individual data to target patterns of discrimination. CONCLUSION: We propose a set of indicators as a guide for health policy experts seeking to design national cancer plans that are based on a human rights-based approach to health, and for cancer specialists aiming to implement principles of the right to health in their practice. The 54 indicators selected may be used in High-Income Countries, or member states of the OECD who also have signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to monitor progress towards implementation of the right to health for women with breast cancer.

'Harnessing the power of the law': a qualitative analysis of the legal determinants of health in English urban planning and recommendations for fairer and healthier decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Urban environments impact negatively on the risks of non-communicable diseases and perpetuate health inequalities. Against this, law could play a critical role, notably through implementing and securing visions of health and well-being, and evidence-based interventions. METHODS: Seven teams conducted 123 interviews with 132 actors in urban planning in England. Teams had expertise in urban planning, transport, real estate, public health, public policy, administration, and management. An additional team with expertise in law analysed data from all interviews to explore how the law is perceived and used to promote health in urban planning. RESULTS: Six issues were identified as preventing actors from using the law to improve health in urban planning: (i) density and complexity of the law; (ii) weak and outdated regulatory standards; (iii) absence of health from legal requirements in the decision-making process; (iv) inconsistent interpretations by actors with competing interests; (v) lack of strong health evidence-based local planning policies; and (vi) inertia of the law. CONCLUSIONS: The legal determinants of health listed in the Lancet-O'Neill Commission's report need to be strengthened at the local level to effectively deploy law in English urban development. The findings call for strong, evidence-based local planning policies and decision-making frameworks, placing health as (one of the) core value(s) of urban planning and showing what types of development benefit health, i.e., prevent NCDs risks and reduce health inequalities on the long term. The legal capacity of local government should be strengthened to empower decision-makers in shaping urban development that promotes health for everyone.

How should implementation of the human right to health be assessed? A scoping review of the public health literature from 2000 to 2021.

The human right to health is a critical legal tool to achieve health justice, and universal health coverage is included among the Sustainable Development Goals. However, the content and meaning of the right to health may not be used adequately in public health research. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to discover the extent to which the legal principles underlying the right to health are used in public health. We mapped the various attempts to assess implementation of this right since its legal content was clarified in 2000.The first studies emerged in 2006, with an increase and a wider variety of investigations since 2015. We observe that some key principles do form the basis of right-to-health assessments, but some concepts remain unfamiliar. Critically, public health academics may have limited access to human rights research on health, which creates a gap in knowledge between the two disciplines.

The social determinants of health, law, and urban development: using human rights to address structural health inequalities in our cities.

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated profound inequalities in the conditions in which people live, work, and age. Law plays a critical role in shaping these structural health inequalities, which have existed for decades. This dynamic can be observed at the local level, with cities operating as environments unequally distributing the risks of non-communicable diseases between population groups. This article first focuses on urban development to explore the conceptual links between health inequalities and the role of law. I expand this observation and I posit that the social determinants of health are about human rights. With that in mind, I argue that human rights are necessary to address the issue of unequally unhealthy urban environments, hence recognising that people are entitled to a minimum essential level of the conditions in which they live, work, and age, which the State is responsible to fulfil. By way of strengthening my argument, I lay out how a human rights framework can improve these conditions and ameliorate unfair inequalities. Finally, I recognise and respond to the limits of a human rights approach.

Understanding how to create healthier places: A qualitative study exploring the complex system of urban development decision-making.

Tackling complex system challenges like creating healthy environments requires understanding priorities and structures affecting multiple actors. This qualitative study, involving 132 multi-sectoral stakeholders spanning the urban development decision-making system, explores how to influence healthier place-making. Using thematic analysis we develop themes around competing stakeholder priorities; structural 'rules' and influential relationships; and justifying a focus on health, requiring greater clarity and consensus around definitions of 'healthy' urban development. Building on the socio-ecological model we highlight how a multi-faceted approach is required for change at multiple levels in the complex system to target individual actor motivations, organisational priorities and structural 'rules'.

The Right to Health in Times of Pandemic: What Can We Learn from the UK's Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak?

The UK's response to COVID-19 has been widely criticized by scientists and the public. According to EuroMOMO, a European mortality monitoring initiative, the excess mortality that may be attributable to COVID-19 in England is one of the highest in Europe, second only to Spain. While critiqued from a public health perspective, much less attention is given to the implications of the pandemic outbreak for the right to health as defined under international human rights law and ratified by member states. Using the UK as a case study, we examine critically the extent to which the government's response to COVID-19 complied with the legal framework of the right to health. We review further key states' obligations on the right to health and assess its suitability in times of pandemic. Finally, we offer some recommendations for an update of the right to health. This paper adds to the body of literature on the right to health and human rights based-approaches to health.