Centre actors’ domination on policy and programmatic agenda |
Organizational power and budgetary control of politicians and central actors |
|
|
Resistance, contestations and negotiation by private service providers, |
Influential social positions and cumulative power of private lobbies |
Personal interests of local politicians, managers and doctors in kickbacks |
|
Resistance to follow top down instructions on JSSK documentation and reporting |
Social positions of being junior and senior in profession |
Unwillingness and non-cooperating attitude of some managers; need for recognition and credit for managers |
|
Domination of doctors and nurses on service delivery decisions (sending a client away) |
Professional autonomy on clinical decisions of doctors |
|
|
Domination of doctors on patient’s choice for medicines or treatment and consent from patients |
Professional position, social positions of influence of doctor; Low knowledge of patients |
|
|
Negotiations and contestations of beneficiary and managers for better quality |
More informed clients and exercising knowledge, use of social influence by patients |
|
Beneficiary belief in patient rights and entitlements |
Doctor and facility control over availability of USG services and client negotiations |
Organizational and professional (medical) power of doctors |
Absence of choice and personal need of patients to avail services from private; financial interest of doctors |
Accepted norm for not being accountable to patient needs; Belief in incentivization to doctors as a systems responsibility |
Collaboration, facilitation for local problem solving and implantation needs for policy |
|
Commitment, energy, problem solving attitude of one manager |
Faith in participatory and collaborative management of a manager |
Doctors facilitation for service delivery (all services to a client) |
|
|
Doctor’s professional ethics and moral sense of duty towards society and poor |