These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Consensus and conflicts in health sector reforms in India: a Delphi study.
    Author: Anand K, Pandav CS, Kapoor SK.
    Journal: Natl Med J India; 2002; 15(4):221-6. PubMed ID: 12296480.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Health sector reforms have generated much debate in India, especially in the context of economic liberalization. The World Bank intensified this debate in 1993 when it tried to redefine the role of the public and private sectors in healthcare. The Government of India has recently announced the National Health Policy. We are not aware of any formal exercise by which a consensus has been reached or conflicts in the issues related to health policy have been assessed. We present the results of such an exercise conducted in the format of a Delphi study. METHODS: Based on a review of the current literature, a 9-domain, 56-item questionnaire was prepared. This was sent to a panel of 132 respondents with diverse backgrounds, from the grassroots workers to policymakers by surface or electronic mall. They were asked to identify the three top priorities and to give their degree of agreement to the statements. The results of the first round were analysed and sent back to the respondents for reconsideration. Consensus was defined as the presence of > or = 75% of the respondents in agreement whereas conflict was said to be present if > 35% of the respondents were on either side of the divide. During the subsequent round, the respondents were also asked to give three suggestions on how to approach the previously identified top three priorities. RESULTS: Half (66) of the original list of panelists replied to the questionnaire. The three priorities identified and later ratified were: improving the quality of care of the primary healthcare system, improvements in medical education and setting up a disease surveillance system. Other areas of consensus identified were: setting up a formal channel of interaction with the private health sector, instituting cost recovery systems in the government sector, setting up a technology assessment commission and bringing accountability into the system. Conflicts were in continuation of subsidy in medical education, the role of and need for health insurance and the role of health professionals vis-a-vis Panchayati Raj institutions. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated, on a small scale, the feasibility of assessing consensus on a wide range of issues. The approach is replicable, cost-effective and ensures that the scope of involvement is widened. Also, there is likely to be a greater feeling of self-involvement in the decisions made which would therefore meet with less resistance from the system during implementation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]