Skip to main content

Table 3 Opinion, perception and practices related to financial management

From: Local self governance in health - a study of it’s functioning in Odisha, India

Items District classification p
Priority Non-priority Total
No. % No. % No. %
The amount of funds allocated under NHM to the RKS?
More than enough 0 0 2 3.6 2 1.9 p = 0.100
Sufficient 12 23.1 7 12.5 19 17.6
Manageable 25 48.1 30 53.6 55 50.9
Insufficient 15 28.8 13 23.2 28 25.9
Grossly insufficient 0 0 4 7.1 4 3.7
Total 52 100 56 100 108 100
Is user-fees being imposed in the institution (health unit)?
Yes 45 88.2 53 94.6 98 91.6 p = 0.233
No 6 11.8 3 5.4 9 8.4
Total 51 100 56 100 107 100
What happens to your request for additional requirements/needs, at state level?
No feedback received 11 27.5 8 15.7 19 20.9 p < 0.001**
Got approved as it was 6 15 31 60.8 37 40.7
Got approved with reduction of budget 7 17.5 4 7.8 11 12.1
Never gets approved 5 12.5 2 3.9 7 7.7
Others 11 27.5 6 11.8 17 18.7
Total 40 100 51 100 91 100
What is the frequency of financial audit?
Quarterly 46 92 34 63 80 76.9 p < 0.001**
Half yearly 1 2 5 9.3 6 5.8
Yearly 2 4 0 0 2 1.9
Don’t know 0 0 1 1.9 1 1
Others 1 2 14 25.9 15 14.4
Total 50 100 54 100 104 100
Any additional funds requested last year?
Yes 26 54.2 25 46.3 51 50 p = 0.427
No 22 45.8 29 53.7 51 50
Total 48 100 54 100 102 100
If ‘yes’, for what purpose?
Drugs 8 34.8 11 44 19 39.6 p = 0.036*
Equipment 5 21.7 2 8 7 14.6
Personnel 6 26.1 1 4 7 14.6
Other purposes 4 17.4 11 44 15 31.3
Total 23 100 25 100 49 100
  1. * Significant. ** Highly significant