O percurso da Política Nacional de Atenção Integral à Saúde dos Homens (PNAISH), desde a sua formulação até sua implementação nos serviços públicos locais de atenção à saúde

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

O artigo tem como objetivo compreender como a Política Nacional de Atenção Integral à Saúde dos Homens (PNAISH) chega aos serviços da Atenção Básica do Sistema Único de Saúde, a partir do ponto de vista dos seus profissionais. Acompanhamos o caminho trilhado pela PNAISH com um estudo, etnográfico, de cinco casos (de cada Macro Região do país). A análise está ancorada no referencial da Antropologia e emprega a ideia de street-level bureaucreacy, de Lipsky. A formulação da PNAISH é contextualizada em termos históricos e da produção de documentos internacionais e nacionais. Reconhecendo a distância entre formulação e implementação de qualquer política, buscamos compreender como tal distância foi se construindo, na tradução da PNAISH para Planos de Ação (PA) municipais. Observou-se desconhecimento dos agentes implementadores sobre a PNAISH, a rede local de atenção à saúde do homem, as técnicas para atender às especificidades dos homens e o conceito de gênero. A implementação esbarrou na ausência de condições institucionais, como uma estrutura organizacional, uma rede consolidada de atenção - em que o usuário seja atendido por serviços com diferentes graus de complexidade dentro do sistema - e recursos em geral, especialmente humanos.

Translated abstract

The scope of this article is to see how the Brazilian Comprehensive Healthcare Policy for Men (PNAISH) has been implemented in the Unified Health System, from the standpoint of health professionals. A case study, involving five cases (each from a different macro region of Brazil) conducted using ethnographic techniques of data collection charted the progress of PNAISH implementation based on an anthropological approach using Lipsky's idea of street-level bureaucracy. PNAISH is contextualized in historical terms with national and international documents. Acknowledging the inevitable gap between the formulation and the implementation of any policy, an attempt is made to see how this gap has evolved by analyzing the transition of PNAISH into city Action Plans (PAs). It was revealed that the implementing agents had little knowledge of PNAISH, of the local health care network for men, of the techniques required to meet men's specific needs and of the concept of gender. It faced institutional obstacles, such as lack of an organizational structure, of a consolidated healthcare network - where the user receives services with different degrees of complexity within the system - and resources in general, especially human resources.

Related collections

Most cited references 27

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Why innovation in health care is so hard.

Regina Herzlinger (2006)

Health care in the United States--and in most other developed countries--is ailing. Medical treatment has made astonishing advances, but the packaging and delivery of health care are often inefficient, ineffective, and user unfriendly. Problems ranging from costs to medical errors beg for ingenious solutions-and indeed, enormous investments have been made in innovation. But too many efforts fail. To find out why, it's necessary to break down the problem, look at the different types of innovation, and examine the forces that affect them. Three kinds of innovation can make health care better and cheaper: One changes the ways consumers buy and use health care, another taps into technology, and the third generates new business models. The health care system erects an array of barriers to each type of innovation. More often than not, organizations can overcome the barriers by managing the six forces that have an impact on health care innovation: players, the friends and foes who can bolster or destroy;funding, the revenue-generation and capital-acquisition processes, which differ from those in other industries; policy, the regulations that pervade the industry; technology, the foundation for innovations that can make health care delivery more efficient and convenient; customers, the empowered and engaged consumers of health care; and accountability, the demand from consumers, payers, and regulators that innovations be safe, effective, and cost-effective. Companies can often turn these six forces to their advantage. The analytical framework the author describes can also be used to examine other industries. Cataloging the innovation types and identifying the forces that aid or undermine them can reveal insights on how to treat chronic innovation ills- prescriptions that will make any industry healthier.