...
首页> 外文期刊>Social science and medicine >Removing user fees for health services: A multi-epistemological perspective on access inequities in Senegal
【24h】

Removing user fees for health services: A multi-epistemological perspective on access inequities in Senegal

机译:删除卫生服务的用户费用:关于塞内加尔的访问不公平的多迎文的视角

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Plan Sesame (PS) is a user fee exemption policy launched in 2006 to provide free access to health services to Senegalese citizens aged 60 and over. Analysis of a large household survey evaluating PS echoes findings of other studies showing that user fee removal can be highly inequitable. 34 semi-structured interviews and 19 focus group discussions with people aged 60 and over were conducted in four regions in Senegal (Dakar, Diourbel, Matam and Tambacounda) over a period of six months during 2012. They were analysed to identify underlying causes of exclusion from/inclusion in PS and triangulated with the household survey. The results point to three steps at which exclusion occurs: (i) not being informed about PS; (ii) not perceiving a need to use health services under PS; and (iii) inability to access health services under PS, despite having the information and perceived need. We identify lay explanations for exclusion at these different steps. Some lay explanations point to social exclusion, defined as unequal power relations. For example, poor access to PS was seen to be caused by corruption, patronage, poverty; lack of social support, internalised discrimination and adverse incorporation. Other lay explanations do not point to social exclusion, for example: poor implementation; inadequate funding; high population demand; incompetent bureaucracy; and PS as a favour or moral obligation to friends or family. Within a critical realist paradigm, we interpret these lay explanations as empirical evidence for the presence of the following hidden underlying causal mechanisms: lacking capabilities; mobilisation of institutional bias; and social closure. However, social constructionist perspectives lead us to critique this paradigm by drawing attention to contested health, wellbeing and corruption discourses. These differences in interpretation lead to subsequent differential policy recommendations. This demonstrates the need for the adoption of a "multi-epistemological" perspective in studies of health inequity and social exclusion. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译:计划芝麻(PS)是2006年推出的用户费豁免政策,以便为60岁及以上的塞内加尔公民提供免费获得卫生服务。对大型家庭调查评估PS呼应结果的分析表明用户费用去除可能是高度不公平的。 34在2012年,在塞内加尔(Dakar,Diourbel,MataM和Tambacounda)的四个地区进行了34个半结构性访谈和19岁及以上的焦点小组讨论。分析了它们以确定排除的潜在原因从/纳入PS并与家庭调查三角化。结果指出了三个步骤,其中出现排除:(i)未知为PS; (ii)不认为需要在PS下使用卫生服务; (iii)尽管有信息和感知需要,但(iii)无法在PS下获得卫生服务。我们确定了在这些不同的步骤中排除的说明解释。一些描述对社会排斥的解释,被定义为不平等的权力关系。例如,看到对PS的差额被认为是由腐败,赞助,贫困引起的;缺乏社会支持,内化歧视和不利融合。其他奠定解释不指向社会排除,例如:实施差;资金不足;人口需求量很高;无能的官僚主义;和PS作为朋友或家人的支持或道德义务。在一个关键的现实主义范式中,我们将这些位置解释解释为存在以下隐藏的潜在因果机制的经验证据:缺乏能力;动员机构偏见;和社交关闭。然而,社会建构主义的观点通过引起有争议的健康,幸福和腐败致命来引领美国批评这种范式。解释的这些差异导致随后的差异政策建议。这证明了需要采用“多识别学”的卫生不公平和社会排斥的观点。 (c)2017 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号