Planning pathways in the transfer of Directly Observed Treatment of Tuberculosis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/rlae.v26i0.154229Keywords:
Health Planning, Tuberculosis, Public Policies, Primary Health Care, Public Health, Health ManagementAbstract
Objective: to investigate the planning pathways in the transfer of Directly Observed Treatment of tuberculosis. Method: a qualitative study conducted using interviews and a semi-structured guide, administered to five subjects who were among the coordinators and managers of the tuberculosis control programs, and the secretary of health of a municipality in the south of Brazil. Situational Strategic Planning and Discourse Analysis of the French matrix were the theoretical and analytical references used, respectively. Results: three reflexive axes were identified: weaknesses in the process of planning the Directly Observed Treatment transfer, antagonism between planning and daily requirements and formulation of planning and execution. Lack of systematization regarding the planning and execution for transfer the Directly Observed Treatment policy, demonstrates the fragility and incipience of this activity, and the possibility of its non-existence. Conclusion: the urgent need for managers and coordinators to better appropriate the theoretical framework for changing public policies, and the related planning mechanisms, includes a proposal for reorganization and qualification of the diffusion process, both practical-operative and political-organization.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.