Table 1 Results from in-depth interviews*
From: Participatory health councils and good governance: healthy democracy in Brazil?
Observed results | |
|---|---|
Participatory | • Lack of training of council members |
• “Politics” influences discussion topics | |
• Tense relationships between council members at the national level | |
• Lack of organized civil society groups to participate in PHCs | |
Consensus oriented | • The parity principle is not enforced (excluding the national level) |
• Weak guidelines for mediating different interests | |
• Predominant individualistic interests | |
Accountable | • No way to measure PHC outcomes, making it difficult to measure accountability to the public |
Transparent | • Delays in implementation of deliberations due to a highly bureaucratic system that lacks transparency and lack of government support |
• Information is disseminated via newspaper, as per the law | |
• Need to use other modes of information dissemination to address lack of public knowledge about PHCs | |
Responsive | • Lack of government responsiveness due to bureaucratic system and inadequate government support |
• PHCs are responsive to societal movements but have a limited impact on fulfilling their demands | |
Effective and efficient | • PHCs provide a forum for discussion of health issues, but real impact remains inconclusive |
• Inefficient budget allocation process (excluding the national level) | |
• Budget constraints cause a lack of resources (excluding the national level) | |
Equitable and inclusive | • Cordial relationships between council members (excluding the national level), with a lack of interaction between them |
• Limited inclusiveness due to membership guidelines | |
Follows the rule of law | • PHCs do not seem to follow their mandate with matters related to the SIACS database, the parity principle, and training of council members |
• PHCs lack an impartial body to enforce their legal framework | |
• PHCs are vulnerable to corrupt practices |