Page 27 - AYUR
P. 27
REDEFINING FRAMEW ORKS PROCESS
The nine key themes of possible areas for intervention that had The lack of equitable access to ISM for different classes of
been previously identified were further broken down into society.
sub-themes, after discovering that the possible areas for interven-
tion existed on three different levels, which would have to be han- Inter-Systemic Gaps: Systemic gaps that creates a collective
dled differently. The earlier definition of the Causal Framework for perception of distrust in ISM, thereby affecting both the internal
Trust (CFT) identified three layers of systemic impact that building functioning of ISM, and the external systems that support ISM. This
trust would have, namely: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary. Howev- included factors such as
er, these terms do not cover the relationships between the layers.
Hence, through comparing the CFT with the nine key themes, a The lack of accurate and inclusive documentation of
better understanding of the nuanced relationships between differ- effectiveness of ISM
ent aspects the layers could be made. The three layers could now
be redefined as follows, respectively: The lack of digital penetration of ISM
Internal Gaps: Systemic gaps within the ISM healthcare systems The lack of of peer-to-peer systems to build collective trust,
that makes the experience of healthcare unfavourable to building and issues in presentation of ISM products and services to
and sustaining trust. This included factors such as: its users.
Poor follow through systems External Gaps: Systemic gaps in the external systems that affect
the functioning of ISM. This included factors such as
The lack of focus on the benefits of slow healing
The national level push towards integrative medicine
Perception of ISM as an ‘alternative’ form of medicine
EXTERNAL INTER INTERNAL
The need for simple, economically viable means for ISM to
reach out to its users
The lack of educational content on integrative medicine.
All of these, in turn, began to build a clearer picture of the possibili-
ties available to influence systems of trust on different levels.
