Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,693 studies31 sourcesUpdated 44 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)

Determinants of parliamentary health funding allocation in Brazil: A national cross-sectional study.

  • Mariana G Magon1
  • Marcio R Facanali2
  • José Maria Soares3
  • Sarah Emmely Fazanaro1
  • Everson L A Artifon1
  1. 1Department of Surgery, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
  2. 2Department of Gastroenterology, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: [email protected].
  3. 3Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Parliamentary amendments are an important mechanism for health resource allocation in Brazil, but little is known about the characteristics of actors involved in mobilizing these resources. This national cross-sectional web-based survey included 276 respondents, each reporting on the usual amendment allocation pattern of a parliamentary office in 2025. The outcome was categorized as higher-magnitude (> BRL 1,000,000; n = 124) or lower-magnitude (≤ BRL 1,000,000; n = 152). Associations with individual, institutional, political, and allocation-related variables were examined using multivariable logistic regression with backward selection based on the Akaike information criterion. Higher-magnitude allocations were associated with relevance attributed to party affiliation (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR = 2.80], 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI 1.46-5.55]), prioritization of capital investment (aOR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.07-3.02), and representation by a professional advisory intermediary (aOR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.16-3.29). Extroverted personality profile (aOR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.81), an advisory position within the parliamentary office (aOR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.92), and prioritization of higher-complexity care (aOR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.34-0.97) were inversely associated with higher-magnitude allocation. The final model showed moderate apparent discrimination (AUC = 0.716). Reported amendment magnitude was associated with political alignment, allocation strategy, and intermediary characteristics. These exploratory findings should be interpreted in light of the cross-sectional design, purposive sampling, and respondent-reported outcome.

Related

  1. Parliamentary workload and outpatient medical costs among Japanese national civil servants: An ecological study in Kasumigaseki
    Koryu Sato, Hirotaka Kato, Kosuke Inoue +2
    Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textEpidemiology & public healthPMC
  2. Patterns and determinants of formal healthcare utilisation among individuals with and without proxy-identified mental health need in Tanzania: A cross-sectional analysis of the National Panel Survey
    Gallen Mlenge, Odass Bilame, Lutengano Mwinuka
    PLOS Mental HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textNeuroscienceNeurologyPLOS
  3. Cross-national factors associated with governmental responses to the 2025 PEPFAR funding freeze
    A. McGregor, S. Suggala, W. Abdeljaber +2
    medRxivPreprintCC BYFull textInfectious diseasemedRxiv
  4. National Institutes of Health Funding for Research About Transgender and Nonbinary Youths
    Ben C. D. Weideman, Benjamin Parchem, Toli Reigada +1
    JAMA Network OpenPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull text1 citedGeneral medicineCrossrefEurope PMCPMC
  5. Mental health and socioeconomic determinants of suicide risk among people living with HIV in Taiwan: an 18-year national cohort study
    Ya-Chi Wu, Jia-Hau Lee, Wen-Chun Liu +4
    Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Infectious diseaseCrossref

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{magon2026determinants,
  title = {{Determinants of parliamentary health funding allocation in Brazil: A national cross-sectional study.}},
  author = {Mariana G Magon and Marcio R Facanali and José Maria Soares and Sarah Emmely Fazanaro and Everson L A Artifon},
  journal = {Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1016/j.clinsp.2026.101198},
  url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42880130},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Determinants of parliamentary health funding allocation in Brazil: A national cross-sectional study.
AU  - Mariana G Magon
AU  - Marcio R Facanali
AU  - José Maria Soares
AU  - Sarah Emmely Fazanaro
AU  - Everson L A Artifon
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/14
JO  - Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)
DO  - 10.1016/j.clinsp.2026.101198
UR  - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42880130
AB  - Parliamentary amendments are an important mechanism for health resource allocation in Brazil, but little is known about the characteristics of actors involved in mobilizing these resources. This national cross-sectional web-based survey included 276 respondents, each reporting on the usual amendment allocation pattern of a parliamentary office in 2025. The outcome was categorized as higher-magnitude (> BRL 1,000,000; n = 124) or lower-magnitude (≤ BRL 1,000,000; n = 152). Associations with individual, institutional, political, and allocation-related variables were examined using multivariable logistic regression with backward selection based on the Akaike information criterion. Higher-magnitude allocations were associated with relevance attributed to party affiliation (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR = 2.80], 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI 1.46-5.55]), prioritization of capital investment (aOR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.07-3.02), and representation by a professional advisory intermediary (aOR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.16-3.29). Extroverted personality profile (aOR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.81), an advisory position within the parliamentary office (aOR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.92), and prioritization of higher-complexity care (aOR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.34-0.97) were inversely associated with higher-magnitude allocation. The final model showed moderate apparent discrimination (AUC = 0.716). Reported amendment magnitude was associated with political alignment, allocation strategy, and intermediary characteristics. These exploratory findings should be interpreted in light of the cross-sectional design, purposive sampling, and respondent-reported outcome.
SN  - 1807-5932
SN  - 1980-5322
ER  -