The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic and the inequitable response to it has created a space for rethinking the knowledge translation that informs current health policy formulation and planning. Wide recognition of the failure of global health governance and national health systems has led to calls for reviving the Primary Health Care (PHC) agenda for post-COVID health systems development. Despite the joint international declaration on PHC made four decades ago, it has had limited application. This paper argues that the recent attempts to rethink PHC will prove inadequate without analysing and learning from the politics of knowledge (PoK) underlying global health policy and planning. Even with the growing relevance of the spirit of the Alma-Ata Declaration (1978) and its operationalisation as detailed in the report of conference proceedings, reassessment of reasons for its limited implementation continues to be located largely in the political economy of the medical establishment, the international economic order or in national governance flaws. Failure to address the dominant knowledge paradigm in the Alma Ata articulation of PHC has contributed to its limited application. This calls for expansion in the analysis from knowledge translation to generation and hierarchisation of knowledge. The paper discusses how the application of PoK as an analytical lens helps understand the power equations underlying the process of knowledge generation and its translation into policy and practice. Beneath the techno-centric and commodified health system is the dominant ‘knowledge’ system whose foundations and assumptions ought to be interrogated. By following a PoK approach, a reorientation of thinking about the relationship between various forms of knowledge and knowledge holders is anticipated. A new health service system design is outlined—translating the spirit of PHC of 1978 into a ‘PHC Version 2.0’—that addresses the PoK gap in operational terms, with an approach to guide all levels of healthcare. It suggests how the world can be empowered to respond better by engaging with diverse ontologies and epistemologies to conceptualise knowledge and frame policies. Further, in the contexts of Asia, Africa and Latin America, it can contribute to the development of self-reliance to democratise general health policy and planning in the post-pandemic period.

Aim The aim of the study is to investigate the trends in adult height between two consecutive surveys of NHFS and explore differences across variables such as gender, wealth, social groups etc. Methods We used the NFHS-II (1998–99), NFHS–III (2005–2006) and NFHS-IV (2015–16) (all three for women and last two for men) data to examine the trends in average height. Comparison was done between the two age strata of 15–25 and 26–50 years, across both male and female, to assess the trends. Results Between NFHS-III and NFHS-IV, the average height of women in the age group of 15–25 showed a decline by 0.12 cm [95% CI, -0.24 to 0.00, p-0.051] while in the 26–50 years age strata it demonstrated significant improvement in the mean height by 0.13 cm [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.023, p-0.015]. However, Between NFHS III and IV, the average height of women in the poorest wealth index category registered a significant decline [-0.57cm, 95% CI, -076 to -0.37, p-0.000]. Between NFHS III and IV, the average height of Scheduled Tribe (ST) women in the age group of 15–25 years also exhibited a significant decline by 0.42 cm, [95% CI, -0.73 to -0.12, p-0.007]. Among men, between the two surveys, both the age groups of 15–25 years and 26–50 years showed significant decline in average height: 1.10 cm [95% CI, -1.31 to -.099 cm, p-0.00] and 0.86 cm [95% CI, -1.03 to -0.69, p-0.000], respectively. Conclusion In the context of an overall increase in average heights worldwide the decline in average height of adults in India is alarming and demands an urgent enquiry. The argument for different standards of height for Indian population as different genetic group needs further scrutiny. However, the trends from India clearly underline the need to examine the non-genetic factors also to understand the interplay of genetic, nutritional and other social and environmental determinants on height.

No abstract

The National Medical Council Bill, 2017, was tabled in Parliament on 29 December 2017 with the proposal to replace the Medical Council of India (MCI) as the regulatory body for medical education and practice in the country. This was the response of the PMO-NITI Aayog Committee, which was formed after the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Health and Family Welfare in its 92nd report strongly indicted the functioning of the MCI and recommended a complete restructuring. The Bill sets out various proposals with the aim to regulate the quality of doctors produced as well as the ethics of their practice. Its content has raised much contestation from the medical fraternity. A host of issues have emerged, such as, what professionalism should mean and what forms of regulation should be put in place, and what mechanisms have to be considered in order to balance the interests of the public and the medical fraternity so that the restructuring that is sorely required can go through.

Different concepts of quality in health care have implications for nature, structure and composition of health service systems. Issues of access, cost and quality of care are intricately linked; for recipients, providers as well as for policy-makers. Quality in health care is a complex construct because it is linked not just with the quality of services provided at the institution and systemic level but has several tangible and intangible dimensions including individual patient's interests and larger societal concerns about improvement in health status. Quality is an important consideration for choosing the services for recipients, accreditation of hospitals for care providers, and for policy-makers while making decisions regarding health service system models. This article traces the way the issue has been dealt with at the policy and planning level so far, including the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) as well as in the proposed models for Universal Health Care by the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) and 12th Plan Steering committee reports.