Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Department of Healthcare Services Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences/ Health Management and Economics Research Center/ Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Healthcare Services Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences/ Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to identify models for the participation of the city council and municipality with
the health system in selected countries.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This is a descriptive comparative study conducted in 2020 qualitatively.
The countries studied were examined in terms of the following characteristics: type of political
structure, type of health system, level of cooperation between local government and health system,
municipal financing, type of financial participation of local government and health system, method
or institution for participation Created, level of participation, local government influence on health
system decisions, advantages and disadvantages of a partnership between local government and
health system. Data were collected through valid databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google
Search engine) and website of the World Health Organization, local government, and the Ministry
of Health of countries concerned and analyzed in a framework of analysis.
RESULTS: Countries were divided into two groups in terms of a partnership between the health
system and local governments, which had a distinct partnership between the health system and local
government and without their participation. Factors that contribute to the creating and strengthening
of partnerships include beliefs of health authorities and local government, the need for participation,
transparency in participatory programs, designing a specific mechanism for participation, local
authority, and financing joint participation plans.
CONCLUSION: In countries with planned participation, citizens have better access to services.
Citizens’ participation, as well as the private sector, is greater in health issues. In these countries,
participation in health financing by the private sector and other related agencies has increased.
Planning and service delivery increases according to neighborhood needs. The variety of services
provided and the use of new methods of service are more, and in these countries, the focus of
the Ministry of Health on the preparation of strategies and monitoring the quality of services is
increasing.
Keywords
Lisa Forman Attiya Waris Claire E. Brolan Martin McKee.
Devi Sridhar. Global Health Governance in the Sustainable
Development Goals: Is it Grounded in the Right to Health? Global
Challenges 2017;1(1):47‑60.
2. Corneliussen HG, Hove MH, editors. New technology in
Norwegian municipalities’ health care services: National
advises meets regional conditions. Proceedings from The
15th Scandinavian Conference on Health Informatics 2017.
Kristiansand, Norway Linköping University Electronic Press;
2018.
3. Khangah HA, Jannati A, Imani A, Salimlar S, Derakhshani N,
Raef B. Comparing the health care system of Iran with various
countries. Health Scope 2017;6: e34459.
4. Webster P, Sanderson D. Healthy cities indicators – A suitable
instrument to measure health? J Urban Health 2013; 90:52‑61.
5. Commission on Health, Environment and Urban Services;
2019. Available from: http://shora.tehran.ir/Default.
aspx?tabid=336. [Last accessed on 2019 Jan 14].
6. Kim NS. Promoting of healthy cities through social ecological
paradigm. Indian J Public Health Res 2018; 9:2255‑60.
7. London mo. London Health and Care Collaboration Agreement
December 2015; 2015. Available from: https://www.london.
gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_health_and_care_
collaboration_agreement_dec_2015_signed.pdf. [Last accessed
on 2019 Jan 12].
8. CARE DOHAS. Policy Paper London Health Devolution Agreement;
2017. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/london‑health‑devolution‑agreement/
london‑health‑devolution‑agreement. [Last updated on 2017
Nov 22; Last accessed on 2019 Jan 12].
9. Government DfCaL. Local Government Structure; 2012.
Available from: http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/
local‑government‑structure[Ref3] . [Last updated on 2017 Jan 22;
Last accessed on 2019 Jun 30].
10. Collin Homer, Jon Dewitz, Joyce Fry, Michael Coan, Nazmul
Hossain, Charles Larson, Nate Herold, Alexa McKerrow, J. Nick
VanDriel, and James Wickham. Completion of the 2001 National
Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing · April 2007;
9:2254‑60.
11. Raisi M. Structural analysis of local governments in the world
2018. Available from: http://ayaronline.ir/1396/10/265079.
html[Ref4] . [Last accessed on 2019 Jan 12].
12. Available from: https://www1.nyc.gov/nyc‑resources/building‑healthy‑communities‑neighborhoods.page. [Last
accessed on 2019 Jan 12].
13. Strategic Plan FY 2018 – 2022; 2018. Available from: https://
www.hhs.gov/about/strategic‑plan/index.html. [Last accessed
on 2019 Jan 13].
14. STRATEGIC PLAN 2015‑2019; 2019. Available from: http://www.
ibb.gov.tr/en‑US/Organization/Birimler/StratejikPlanlamaMd/
Documents/stratejik_plan_2015‑2019.pdf. [Last accessed on 2019
Jan 13].
15. Qaderi M. Comparison of revenues and expenses of Tehran
municipality with 6 metropolitan cities: Urban Management;
October 3, 2018. Available from: http://ayaronline.
ir/1396/07/253780.html.[Ref5] [Last accessed on 2019 Jun 18].
16. Busse R, Blümel M, Knieps F, Bärnighausen T. Statutory health
insurance in Germany: A health system shaped by 135 years
of solidarity, self‑governance, and competition. Lancet 2017;
390:897‑2.
17. Blank R, Burau V, Kuhlmann E. Comparative Health Policy. 5th
ed. Macmillan International Higher Education; 2017. Available
from: http://Amazon.com.[Ref6] [Last accessed on 2019 Aug 10].
18. Gunlicks AB. Local Government in the German Federal System.
Duke Univ Pr; 1986.
19. Engberg LA, Larsen JN. Context‑orientated meta‑governance in
Danish urban regeneration. Plann Theory Pract 2010; 11:549‑71.
20. City of Copenhagen Government 2018‑2021; 2018.
Available from: https://international.kk.dk/artikel/
city‑copenhagen‑government. [Last accessed on 2019 Jan 13].
21. Mossialos E, Le Grand J. Health Care and Cost Containment in
the European Union. Routledge; 2 edition (November 20, 2020).
22. Municipal Council 2019. Available from: https://www.ibb.
istanbul/en/SitePage/Index/86. [Last acessed on 2019 Jan 13].
23. Mehrdad R. Health system in Iran. JMAJ 2009; 52:69‑73.
24. Department of Health 2019. Available from: http://farhangi.
tehran.ir/Default.aspx?tabid=73. [Last accessed on 2019 Jan 14].
25. Doshmangir L, Bazyar M, Majdzadeh R. So near, so far: Four
decades of health policy reforms in Iran, achievements and
challenges. Arch Iran Med 2019;22:592‑605.
26. The Law of the Municipalities in Iran; 2019. Available
from: http://law.dotic.ir/AIPLaw/lawview.do?reqCode=law
View&lawId=83412&type=all&isLaw=1. [Last accessed on 2019
Jan 01].
27. Kheyroddin R, Hamzehlou S. Analyzing the obstacles to the
realization of citizens’ Participation in the Context of City Council
Elections Law (Case Study: Tehran City Council). Creative City
Design 2017; 1:114‑31.
28. Acuto V, Morissette M, Tsouros A. City diplomacy: Towards more
strategic networking? Learning with WHO healthy cities. Global
Policy 2017; 8:14‑22.
29. London mo. Health Inequalities Strategy; 2018. Available
from: https://www.london.gov.uk/what‑we‑do/health/
health‑inequalities‑strategy. [Last accessed on 2019 Jan 12].
30. Akman M, Sakarya S, Sargın M, Ünlüoğlu İ, Eğici MT,
Boerma WG, et al. Changes in primary care provision in Turkey:
A comparison of 1993 and 2012. Health Policy 2017; 121:197‑206.
31. Akinci F, Mollahaliloğlu S, Gürsöz H, Öğücü F. Assessment of
the Turkish health care system reforms: A stakeholder analysis.
Health Policy 2012; 107:21‑30.
32. Esmailzadeh H, Cheraghi V, Moslemi A. Comparative study
of urban management and normative autonomy of local
governments (Case study: Hungry, Austria, Turkey, German,
Iran). Urban Manage Stud 2015; 7:48‑63.
33. Ladner A, Keuffer N, Baldersheim H. Measuring local autonomy
in 39 countries. Regional & Federal Studies 2016. 26 (3):321‑357.
34. De Leeuw E, Simos J. Healthy cities: The Theory, Policy, and
Practice of Value‑Based Urban Planning. 1rd ed. Healthy Cities;
2017.
35. Mottaeva A. Improvement of transport for the “Healthy Cities”
planning. MATEC Web of Conferences 2018. 193 (9):01022.
36. Sheard S, Power H. Body and City: Histories of Urban Public
Health. 1st ed. Body and City: Histories of Urban Public Health;
2017.
37. de Leeuw E, Green G, Dyakova M, Spanswick L, Palmer N.
European Healthy Cities evaluation: Conceptual framework and
methodology. Health Promotion International 2015; 30: 8‑17.
38. Forbat J. The swiss NEHAP: Why it ended. Health Promot Int
2015; 30:716‑24.
)