Characterizing Therapeutic Pluralism Policies in Latin America: A Qualitative Content Analysis.

Introduction: The 1978 Alma Ata Declaration initiated international recognition of non-biomedical healing systems and their relevance for primary health. World Health Assembly (WHA) resolutions have called for the study and inclusion of traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) into national health systems through policy development. The increased public, political, and scholarly attention given to T&CM has focused on clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, mechanisms of action, consumer demand, and supply-side regulation. Although >50% of WHO member states have T&CM policies, scant research has focused on these policies and their public health implications. This paper defines a novel term "therapeutic pluralism," and it aims at characterizing related policies in Latin America. Methods: A qualitative content analysis of Latin American therapeutic pluralism policies was performed. Policies' characteristics and the reported social, political, and economic forces that have made possible their development were assessed. Pre-defined policy features were categorized on an MS-Excel; in-depth text analyses were conducted in NVivo. Analyses followed the steps described by Bengtsson: decontextualization, recontextualization, categorization, and compilation. Results: Seventy-four (74) policy documents from 16 of the 20 sovereign Latin American countries were included. Mechanisms for policy enactment included: Constitution, National Law, National Policy, National Healthcare Model, National Program Guideline, Specific Regulatory Norms, and Supporting Legislation, Policies, and Norms. We propose a four-category typology of policy approaches in Latin America: Health Services-centered, Model of Care-based, Participatory, and Indigenous People-focused. Common themes countries used when justifying developing these policies included: benefits to the health system, legal and political mandates, supply and demand, and culture and identity. Social forces these policies referenced as influencing their development included: pluralism, self-determination and autonomy, anticapitalism and decolonization, safeguarding cultural identity, bridging cultural barriers, and sustainability. Conclusion: Policy approaches to therapeutic pluralism in Latin America go beyond integrating non-biomedical interventions into health services; they offer perspectives for transforming health systems. Characterizing these approaches has implications for policy development, implementation, evaluation, international collaboration, the development of technical cooperation tools and frameworks, and research.