As I had mentioned in my previous response - evaluation of outcome of CSO participation is not possible without an understanding of the nature and role of the specific CSO; the assessment of evidence on the theme, I believe, would not actually address the issue(S) in the absence of acknowledging the anomalies of common assumptions about similarities of “people” and their participation contexts, particularly engaging the marginalized experience.
I Sincerely appreciate the ongoing summaries of participant feedback on the questions by both Unni and yourself [*see note below], which help a lot to define both distinctions and similarities of CSO contexts and also the experience of citizen members worldwide as related to sustainable aspects of the healthcare system. The distinctions (described in details of participant experience with their particular CSOs) can certainly help to “reorient “ the structural/organizational aspects of CSOs for purposes of SDGs of good health (No 3 ) and Partnership (No 17). The findings are especially significant for realizing WHO ‘s focus on the UHC , within the framework of its Integrated People centred Health services .Yet , the key details provided by colleagues from similar culture societies, remain inadequate for capturing the complexities of policies that may be needed to achieve a responsive, accountable and inclusive healthcare system for “everyone, everywhere and every time”, a recurring vision to relate Health and peace and vice versa, mentioned often during the 75th World Health Assembly ‘s Strategic Round table discussions including today’s session devoted to Behavioural science and initiatives - which I had the privilege to attend as a meember of the WHO ‘s GPSN (Global Patient Safety Network).
It is my hope that Unni’s insightful analysis would actually direct attention to a critical reflection on the asymmetry of “power” between the system and the stakeholders in this discourse. A collective acknowledgement of the differences in access and decision making, I believe, also provides an opportunity for ( a) defining the stratifications within the “Civil Society “ as well as its members, the “people” and (b) acknowledging the variations in CSO engagement and “people” participation
As a social scientist who is committed to understand and address the root causes of inequities in all three pillars of the UHC - those of coverage, availability and affordability, I believe Unni’s note about the Support System projects’ interest to explore “ how civil society organizations and mechanisms for participation help promote views and interests of people in general and people who for some reason (like poverty or ethnicity) is marginalized, as compared with more defined professional interests of, for example, health professional associations or organizations focusing on specific issues” - both identifies and addresses an important aspect of the challenge
Esha Ray Chaudhuri
Calgary, Alberta,Canada
[*Note from NPW, moderator: All: Unni posted reflections on week 1 here: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/support-systems-29-reflections-first-we... We look forward to more reflections on weeks 2 and 3. You can review all messages on our RSS feed here: www.hifa.org/rss-feeds/17 We are especially interested to hear about your lived experience, whether as an indivudal, CSO or decision-maker. Every contribution helps us to build a collective understanding of the issues and richer, more diverse outputs for the benefit of others. As always, please send by email to: hifa@hifaforums.org ]
