Abstract
Background Lack of trust hinders care seeking, and limits community support for contact tracing, care seeking, information and communication uptake, multisectoral or multi-stakeholder engagement, and community participation. We aimed at exploring how trust might be breached and what implications this may have in Covid-19 pandemic response by the Bangladesh health systems.
Methods We conducted this qualitative research during the pandemic, through seven online focus group discussions, with purposively selected mixed-gender groups of clinicians and non-clinicians (n=50). Data were analyzed through conventional content analysis method.
Results The common thread throughout the findings was the pervasive mistrust of the people in Bangladeshi health systems in its management of Covid-19 pandemic. In addition to the existing health systems weaknesses, few others became evident throughout the progression of the pandemic, namely, the lack of coordination challenges during the preparatory phase as well as the advanced stages of the pandemic. This; compounded by the health systems and political leadership failures, lead to opportunistic corruption and lack of regulations; leading to low quality, discriminatory, or no service at all. These have trust implications, manifested in health seeking from unqualified providers, nonadherence to health advices, tension between the service seekers and providers, disapproval of the governance mechanism, misuse of already scarce resources, disinterest in community participation, and eventually loss of life and economy.
Conclusions Health sector stewards should learn the lessons from other countries, ensure multisectoral engagement involving the community and political forces, and empower the public health experts to organize and consolidate a concerted health systems effort in gaining trust in the short run, and building a resilient and responsive health system in the long.
Key Messages
Implications for policy makers
The preexisting health systems weaknesses, widely discussed in many literatures on Bangladeshi health systems, need to be addressed first, in consultation with health policy and systems experts.
In order to improve the coordination and science-based professional response to Covid-19 pandemic, the relevant experts, instead of administrators or bureaucrats, should be immediately engaged and deployed.
In order to facilitate adaptive leadership, health system should ensure transparency in every aspects of its functions, curb corruption and discrimination, regulate private sector for cost and quality of services, and ensure equity and fairness.
Politicians in power should engage with other social, cultural and religious forces and formally engage with other political parties in facing the Covid-19 crisis, with a view to fostering multisectoral collaboration and community engagement.
The health system actors should ensure a free flow of correct information following evidence based, scientifically oriented social and behavior change communication (SBCC) strategies.
Implications for public
Bangladeshi health system is grappling with the Covid-19 pandemic. The authors believe that a better response was possible. In this research, people themselves expressed their perceptions and views regarding the alleged mishandling of the situation by health systems stewards. Careful addressing of the issues explored in this article may lead to a better pandemic response in the short run, and develop a resilient health system in the long.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was sponsored by United Nations Youth and Students Association of Bangladesh (UNYSAB).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Name of the body: Public Health Foundations of Bangladesh website: www.phfbd.net Detail: Public health foundation of Bangladesh (PHFBD) is an autonomous, non-profit voluntary organization. It is lead by a group of well reputed and committed HR experts, researchers, scientists, clinicians, teachers of medical & other health sciences, public health professionals including epidemiologists, environmentalists, sociologists, nurses and other paraprofessionals. Public health foundation is dedicated to build a healthy society by promoting an evidence-based health system working in partnership with govt. & other stakeholders through research, health education, training and improved health care services. Membership is voluntary and open from different health and allied sciences as well as from professionals related to nutrition, environments, statistics etc. The total numbers of active members are 63 (sixty three) with hundreds of volunteers.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Email: taufiquejoarder{at}gmail.com
N.binkhaled{at}cgiar.org
bsms9dah{at}sussex.ac.uk
Data Availability
We conducted 7 FGDs through 15 to 17 June 2020, with the respondents who showed interest in the Google Forms circulated during the webinar. Each FGD, held and recorded through the video conferencing software Google Meet, consisted of 6-10 respondents, selected through purposive sampling method, from the Google Forms list. Each FGD was done with one of the following groups of mixed-gender respondents, categorized into two broad categories: 1) Clinicians: graduate students (all with medicine or dentistry as their undergraduate background) of public health of a private university, renowned public health experts (all with a medicine background), practicing clinicians (with either medicine or dentistry background); and 2) Non-clinicians: undergraduate students of different departments (management, marketing, botany, business, and pharmacy) of a public university, undergraduate students of public health of a public university, undergraduate students of food and nutrition department of a public university, service holders of different professions (executives, trainers, managers, and coordinators of public and private organizations).