Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/31067
Full metadata record
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorSlutsky, Jean
dc.contributor.authorTumilty, Emma
dc.contributor.authorMax, Catherine
dc.contributor.authorLu, Lanting
dc.contributor.authorTantivess, Sripen
dc.contributor.authorHauegen, Renata Curi
dc.contributor.authorWhitty, Jennifer A.
dc.contributor.authorWeale, Albert
dc.contributor.authorPearson, Steven D.
dc.contributor.authorTugendhaft, Aviva
dc.contributor.authorWang, Hufeng
dc.contributor.authorStaniszewska, Sophie
dc.contributor.authorWeerasuriya, Krisantha
dc.contributor.authorAhn, Jeonghoon
dc.contributor.authorCubillos, Leonardo
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-16T15:10:06Z
dc.date.available2019-01-16T15:10:06Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationSLUTSKY, J. et al. Patterns of public participation: opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective. Journal of Health Organization and Management, p. 1-28, 2016.
dc.identifier.issn1477-7266
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/31067
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.hasversionhttps://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/31002
dc.rightsopen access
dc.titlePatterns of public participation: opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective
dc.typePreprint
dc.description.abstractenPurpose - The paper summarizes data from 12 countries, chosen to exhibit wide variation, on the role and place of public participation in the setting of priorities. The purpose of this paper is to exhibit cross-national patterns in respect of public participation, linking those differences to institutional features of the countries concerned. Design/methodology/approach - The approach is an example of case-orientated qualitative assessment of participation practices. It derives its data from the presentation of country case studies by experts on each system. The country cases are located within the historical development of democracy in each country. Findings - Patterns of participation are widely variable. Participation that is effective through routinized institutional processes appears to be inversely related to contestatory participation that uses political mobilization to challenge the legitimacy of the priority setting process. No system has resolved the conceptual ambiguities that are implicit in the idea of public participation. Originality/value - The paper draws on a unique collection of country case studies in participatory practice in prioritization, supplementing existing published sources. In showing that contestatory participation plays an important role in a sub-set of these countries it makes an important contribution to the field because it broadens the debate about public participation in priority setting beyond the use of minipublics and the observation of public representatives on decision-making bodies.
dc.creator.affilliationPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Washington, DC, USA.
dc.creator.affilliationUniversity of Otago. Department of General Practice & Rural Health. Bioethics Centre. Dunedin, New Zealand.
dc.creator.affilliationCatherine Max Consulting: The Future Health Partnership. London, UK.
dc.creator.affilliationRenmin University of China. School of Public Administration and Policy. Beijing, China.
dc.creator.affilliationMinistry of Public Health. Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program. Bangkok, Thailand.
dc.creator.affilliationFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Centro de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico em Saúde. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
dc.creator.affilliationUniversity of Queensland. School of Pharmacy. Brisbane, Australia / University of East Anglia. Norwich Medical School. Norwich, UK.
dc.creator.affilliationUniversity College London. Department of Political Science. London, UK.
dc.creator.affilliationThe Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Boston, MA, USA.
dc.creator.affilliationUniversity of the Witwatersrand. School of Public Health, Johannesburg, South Africa / Wits School of Public Health. Priceless SA. Johannesburg, South Africa.
dc.creator.affilliationRenmin University. School of Public Administration and Policy. Beijing, China.
dc.creator.affilliationUniversity of Warwick. RCN Research Institute. Warwick Medical School. Coventry, UK.
dc.creator.affilliationNational Medicines Regulatory Authority of Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
dc.creator.affilliationEwha Womans University. Department of Health Management. Seoul, South Korea.
dc.creator.affilliationDartmouth Medical School. Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. Lebanon, NH, USA.
dc.subject.enPublic participation
dc.subject.enPriority setting
dc.subject.enCross-national comparisons
dc.subject.enResource allocation
dc.peerreviewedNão
dc.publicationstatusPublicado
Appears in Collections:CDTS - Preprint

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
va_Renata_Hauegen_CDTS_2016a.pdfVersão do autor - pré-print275.11 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


FacebookTwitterDeliciousLinkedInGoogle BookmarksBibTex Format mendeley Endnote DiggMySpace

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.