LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Takian, Amirhossein
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects:
Background. Most countries that have based their healthcare systems on primary care\ud enjoy better population health, lower health disparities, more equitable access to care, and\ud lower costs. Iranian primary health care (PHC) has achieved population health indices\ud similar to that of the best in the region during the past two decades. Despite this, the\ud system showed itself to be both inadequate in meeting the evolving health needs of the\ud population and unaffordable by many. To address these shortages, in 2005 it was decided\ud to implement a new system, called family medicine (FM), together with Behbar (rural\ud insurance for all) in rural areas and in urban areas of less than 20,000 population. The aim\ud of this thesis was to identify facilitators of and barriers to the implementation of FM in Iran.\ud Methods. Qualitative methods were used, particularly individual semi-structured interviews\ud with stakeholders at three levels: national (19 interviews), provincial (9), and local (43). In\ud addition, three focus groups, document analysis, and observations in health centres were\ud used. The framework approach was employed as the main method for analysis, while\ud remaining open to accommodate emerging themes. The analysis was based on a modified\ud fourfold framework consist of administration, bargaining, interpretation and institutional\ud structuring components, originally introduced by Harrison (2004).\ud Results. The study revealed four interdependent factors that influenced implementation:\ud aspects of the policy; the existing environment; the experience of implementation; and\ud attitudes and perceptions of local practitioners and the public. Making the policy in the\ud 'organized anarchies' of the health system, where ambiguity is prevalent, few people\ud involved and imposing it on others was at the heart of problems with implementation. The\ud policy that was conceptually welcomed because of its innovation and incentive for\ud cooperation, was badly put into practice. The core barrier was the merger of two diverse\ud policies, implemented concurrently by two hostile organizations (MOH & MIO).\ud Conclusions. The thesis revealed the dynamic model of health policy analysis. The policy\ud was essentially adopted on the basis of idealistic views rather than a real solution to\ud existing problems. Implementation was an attempt by two organizations with different\ud aims. Despite some efforts to reduce practical difficulties, the underlying divergence\ud between Behbar and FM was too fundamental to be overcome. Parliament's attempt to\ud separate the purchaser from the provider resulted in great mistrust between the two and to\ud some extent undermined the essence of FM.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 43 5 Discussion ................................................................................................................
    • 6 Conclusion: Selection of a theoretical model for studying implementation..... 45 2.2.1 Health care governance: `Garbage can' model of choice ...................266
    • 267 2.2.2 Effective policy brokering .......................................................................
    • 269 2.2.3 Knowledge and insight of policy makers..............................................
    • 270 2.3 Theprocess .............................................................................................2..7..0 2.3.1 Ineffective policy execution ...................................................................2..80 2.3.2 Theprocess: Local antagonism ............................................................2..83 2.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................
    • of selected theories in a middle-income 285 3.1 Multiple Streams and network theories ...........................................................
    • 3.3 Advocacy coalition framework .........................................................................
    • 3.4 Institutional Rational Choice (IRC)...................................................................
    • 3.5 Principal-agent perspective ..............................................................................
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article