Meta-avaliação de uma avaliação participativa desenvolvida por gestores municipais de saúde com foco no padrão "Utilidade"

Abstract

This article aims to analyze the utility of a local evaluation process developed by administrators and managers of a regional health office in São Paulo, Brazil, and to discuss the need for a well-based choice of theoretical reference to judge this item in participatory approaches. To analyze the organization of the process, the study used the Patton reference, focused on facilitating participants' use of the evaluation. To analyze the evaluation's influence, the dimensions proposed by Weiss, Greene, and Kirkhart were followed. Various types of influence were identified in the field, based on the selected reference. In conclusion, an evaluation model that seeks to promote, together with the stakeholders, the identification of new possibilities of power negotiation requires methodological choices for quality analysis that are not limited to technical or instrumental values, but which expand with the recognition of influence in multiple directions: short and long-term scope and intentions, stages in the evaluation process, and various audiences.

Tips for permanent education in mental health in primary care guided by the Institutional Socio-clinic

“…It is a challenge to construct and think about effective ways of training workers from their health work context so that decision-making processes are based on the collective so that workers and users actively participate ( 31 ) . Not recognizing that the organization of the health work process is a result of the inclusion and interaction of workers and users can produce bureaucratic forms of work, with the subjective impoverishment of the worker and, consequently, of the care ( 32 ) .…”

Meta-evaluation in Primary Health Care Evaluative Studies: a Scoping Review

“…A total of 14 studies were conducted in Brazil [26,27,29,31,33,34,37,39,40,41,42,45,46,47], 3 studies in United States [25,32,44], 3 studies in Canada [30,35,36], 1 study in United Kingdom [28], 1 study in Guine-Bissau [43], and 1 study in Australia [38] (Fig. 2).…”

“…Most studies were published in 2018, followed by 2012, 2015, and 2017 (60.9% of publications). We identi ed the following meta-evaluation objects (i.e., evaluations assessed): Family Health Strategy [26,27,42,46]; external evaluation of the National Program for Access and Quality Improvement in Primary Care {PMAQ-AB) [37,39,45]; health management [33,40,41]; children health [25,28,32]; tuberculosis [29,47]; health of rural women [38]; mental health [34]; guideline and prescription of drugs [36]; International Healthy Cities Movement [31]; health development [43]; assistance development [44]; professional capacitation [30]; and primary care projects [35]. Most meta-evaluations were qualitative (56.5%).…”

“…The following stood out as potentialities observed in the meta-evaluation in PHC, in descending order: Pedagogical, formative, and democratic character [27,31,33,35,40,43,45]; Credibility of evaluation results for decision-making [25,29,36,41,44,45,46]; Quali cation of the evaluated object [32,33,47];…”

“…Expand dialog between involved and interested individuals [26, 28, 29]; Formation of collaborative nets between teaching and research institutions and decision-makers [33,45,47]; Monitoring of nancial resources application and investments viability [25,44,45]; Participation of individuals from different positions in the context of health system [40,44]; Generalization of results in robust meta-evaluations [38,44]; Formative meta-evaluations allow changes during evaluation [36]; Possibility of using different criteria and standards [34]; Knowledge translation and health services quality improvement [36]; Scienti c publication of results stimulates those involved in evaluations [29]; Potentiate results and theory of the evaluated program [32].…”