Comparative study of strategies / National Health Plans of OECD european countries

• Autor(a) principal: Ferrinho, Paulo
• Data de Publicação: 2018
• Outros Autores: Sá Guerreiro, Cátia, Portugal, Rui
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.25761/anaisihmt.152

The adoption of plans in all sectors of society has gained in importance for its ability to influence decision making. Strategic planning (SP), while complex procedure involved and mobilizing all sectors of society, contributes to gains in knowledge and the dissemination thereof, legitimizing strategic visions and clarifying priority areas of intervention. The SP in the health sector (SPH) emerged in the 1990s, strongly driven by the Global Strategy for Health for All by the Year 2000 and, more recently, the Health 21 - Health for All in the 21st Century. In order to maximize health gains in European countries, the WHO Regional Committee for Europe adopted a health plan by 2020, which forms the basis of many of today's NHP (National Health Plan) in Europe. In Portugal, the NHP is in a revised and extended version to 2020, according to the international documents of health policy. In order to compare the different NHP of European Cooperation and Economic Development Organization (OECD) countries, this paper begins by historically frame the SPH in Portugal and Europe. The study focuses on the 24 European OECD countries with documentation of the planning process or health policy, publicly available in Spanish, French, English or Portuguese. The documentary analysis is done using a logical framework and content analysis. The results compare the health governance structure, planning processes and the "essential ingredients" of national strategies, trying to fit them in situations of diversity of countries. This comparative analysis allows, among other contributions, identifying SP models used in European OECD countries, highlighting different types of planning. It also allows some considerations that can result in suggestions for a SPH that even with a capacity deficit, is increasingly value- and evidence-based, reflecting the moral imperatives, social, economic, epidemiological and health to promote and protect health and ensure wellbeing.