Tapia-Cruz JA, Urdapilleta O, Gómez-Dantés O, Garrido-Latorre F

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 483-491
PDF size: 121.87 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objetive. Demonstrate the economic benefits that com¬munity participation may render in the construction of health units. Materials and Methods. The purpose of this study was to analyze the efficiency in the construction of 21 auxiliary health units and 81 rural health built through the Program to Support the Development of Health Services for the Non-Insured Population (PASSPA) through three different construction models (national public bidding, restricted invitation and community participation). Comparisons were also made with the units built through regular construction procedures of the Ministry of Health and other institutions. To evaluate the expenditure/m², a univariate analysis using non-parametric statistics and a mathematical model of bootstrapping were used. Results. The median expenditure/m² and the delivery times for auxiliary health units, and the median expenditure/m² for rural health units were smaller when using community participation. The expenditure/m² of those units built through PASSPA was considerably lower than that of health units built through regular construction procedures. Conclusions. The use of community participation in the construction of auxiliary health units and rural health units may impact positively the resource investment and the delivery times when compared with units built through national public biddings and restricted invitations.The possibility of using community participation in other health activities (supervision, maintenance) should be evaluated.

REFERENCES

1. Turabian JL.Apuntes, esquemas y ejemplos de participación comunitaria en salud. Madrid, España: Díaz de Santos, 1991:1-11.

2. Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia /World Health Organization. Community involvement in primary health care. A study of the process of community motivation and continued participation. Ginebra: WHO, 1977.

3. World Health Organization/Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia. Primary health care. Report of the International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma Ata, URSS. Ginebra: WHO, 1978.

4. World Health Organization. Formulating strategies for health for all by the year 2000. Ginebra:WHO, 1979.

5. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Alma-Ata 1978.Atención Primaria a la Salud. Ginebra: OMS, 1978.

6. Zackus D, Lysack C. Revisiting community participation. Health Policy Plann 1998;13(1):1-12.

7. Klein R. Notes toward a theory of patient involvement. A commissioned paper to the community health center project. Ottawa: Canadian Public Health Association, 1973.

8. Dachler HP,Wilpert B. Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations:A critical evaluation.Adm Sci Q 1978;23:1-39.

9. Rifkin D. Muller F, Bichmann W. Primary health care: On measuring participation. Soc Sci Med 1988;26(9):931-940.

10. Freire P. Pedagogy of the oppressed. Nueva York: Herder & Herder, 1970.

11. Ugalde A. Ideological dimensions of community participation in Latin American health programmes. Soc Sci Med 1985;21(1):41-53.

12. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. European Observatory on Health Care Systems, 2002. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO, 2002.

13. Secretaría de Contraloría y Desarrollo Administrativo. Ley de adquisiciones y obras públicas. México, DF: SECODAM, 2 de octubre de 1996.

14. Drummond M, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Métodos para la evaluación económica de los programas de atención de la salud. Madrid, España: Díaz de Santos, 1991:7-129. 15. Secretaría de Salud. Modelo de atención a la salud para población abierta. México, DF: SSA, 1986.