A review and analysis of accountability in global health funding, research collaborations and training: towards conceptual clarity and better practice.

Harvy Joy Liwanag, Oria James, Annika Frahsa
Author Information
  1. Harvy Joy Liwanag: Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland harvy.liwanag@unibe.ch. ORCID
  2. Oria James: Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. ORCID
  3. Annika Frahsa: Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. ORCID

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Accountability is a complex idea to unpack and involves different processes in global health practice. Calls for accountability in global health would be better translated to action through a better understanding of the concept and practice of accountability in global health. We sought to analyse accountability processes in practice in global health funding, research collaborations and training.
METHODS: This study is a literature review that systematically searched PubMed and Scopus for articles on formal accountability processes in global health. We charted information on processes based on accountability lines ('who is accountable to whom') and the outcomes the processes were intended for ('accountability for what'). We visualised the representation of accountability in the articles by mapping the processes according to their intended outcomes and the levels where processes were implemented.
RESULTS: We included 53 articles representing a wide range of contexts and identified 19 specific accountability processes for various outcomes in global health funding, research collaborations and training. Target setting and monitoring were the most common accountability processes. Other processes included interinstitutional networks for peer checking, litigation strategies to enforce health-related rights, special bodies that bring actors to account for commitments, self-accountability through internal organisational processes and multipolar accountability involving different types of institutional actors. Our mapping identified gaps at the institutional, interinstitutional and broader system levels where accountability processes could be enhanced.
CONCLUSION: To rebalance power in global health, our review has shown that analysing information on existing accountability processes regarding 'who is accountable to whom' and 'accountability for what' would be useful to characterise existing lines of accountability and create lines where there are gaps. However, we also suggest that institutional and systems processes for accountability must be accompanied by political engagement to mobilise collective action and create conditions where a culture of accountability thrives in global health.

Keywords

References

  1. Int J Equity Health. 2018 Sep 5;17(1):136 [PMID: 30185200]
  2. Hum Resour Health. 2019 Jul 12;17(1):54 [PMID: 31300058]
  3. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2011 Jun;25(2):337-46 [PMID: 21628049]
  4. Lancet. 2018 Mar 10;391(10124):918-920 [PMID: 29525408]
  5. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2018 Sep 12;18(1):35 [PMID: 30208877]
  6. Lancet. 2020 Nov 21;396(10263):1627-1628 [PMID: 33220735]
  7. PLoS Med. 2021 Apr 22;18(4):e1003604 [PMID: 33886540]
  8. Environ Sci Technol. 2021 Jan 5;55(1):90-99 [PMID: 33305578]
  9. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Oct;6(10): [PMID: 34706882]
  10. Global Health. 2012 Jul 16;8:25 [PMID: 22799635]
  11. Bull World Health Organ. 2017 Feb 1;95(2):121-127 [PMID: 28250512]
  12. Lancet. 2009 Jun 6;373(9679):1993-5 [PMID: 19493564]
  13. Lancet. 2019 Jul 13;394(10193):173-183 [PMID: 31257126]
  14. Lancet. 2009 May 9;373(9675):1645-53 [PMID: 19427959]
  15. Global Health. 2018 Jan 8;14(1):1 [PMID: 29310698]
  16. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 May 2;20(1):50 [PMID: 35501898]
  17. N Engl J Med. 2013 Mar 7;368(10):936-42 [PMID: 23465103]
  18. Bull World Health Organ. 2018 Nov 1;96(11):782-791 [PMID: 30455533]
  19. Lancet. 2006 Sep 23;368(9541):1067-76 [PMID: 16997661]
  20. Lancet. 2016 Jun 18;387(10037):2536-44 [PMID: 27086170]
  21. PLoS One. 2018 Nov 5;13(11):e0206809 [PMID: 30395625]
  22. PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001416 [PMID: 23667336]
  23. Lancet. 2010 May 1;375(9725):1505-7 [PMID: 20435215]
  24. Global Health. 2020 Oct 20;16(1):101 [PMID: 33081805]
  25. BMJ Glob Health. 2020 May;5(5): [PMID: 32381653]
  26. BMJ Open. 2016 Jul 07;6(7):e010425 [PMID: 27388347]
  27. PLoS One. 2013 Jul 09;8(7):e67320 [PMID: 23874412]
  28. Soc Sci Med. 2010 Oct;71(8):1520-6 [PMID: 20822839]
  29. BMJ Glob Health. 2020 May;5(5): [PMID: 32381655]
  30. JBI Evid Implement. 2021 Mar;19(1):3-10 [PMID: 33570328]
  31. BMC Med Ethics. 2014 May 28;15:42 [PMID: 24885855]
  32. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2020 Mar;18(1):95-100 [PMID: 31567603]
  33. Health Econ Policy Law. 2017 Apr;12(2):207-221 [PMID: 28332463]
  34. Lancet. 2017 Jul 15;390(10091):324-332 [PMID: 28139255]
  35. J Glob Health. 2021 Mar 01;11:03045 [PMID: 33763215]
  36. Med Teach. 2011;33(8):673-6 [PMID: 21774656]
  37. Bioethics. 2022 May;36(4):411-422 [PMID: 35041227]
  38. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Feb 18;18(1):22 [PMID: 32070372]
  39. Lancet. 2019 Mar 16;393(10176):1082-1084 [PMID: 30894258]
  40. Glob Health Action. 2020;13(sup1):1694744 [PMID: 32194010]
  41. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1999 Nov;25(11):602-13 [PMID: 10554732]
  42. Health Policy Plan. 2004 Nov;19(6):371-9 [PMID: 15459162]
  43. Lancet. 2021 Jan 16;397(10270):189-190 [PMID: 33453772]
  44. Health Policy Plan. 2009 Nov;24(6):407-17 [PMID: 19570773]
  45. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2017 Aug 3;17(1):21 [PMID: 28774306]
  46. Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397(10278):968 [PMID: 33714383]
  47. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Jun;6(6): [PMID: 34083243]
  48. Bull World Health Organ. 2022 Nov 1;100(11):676-688 [PMID: 36324552]
  49. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:36-42 [PMID: 26891951]
  50. Health Hum Rights. 2010 Jun 15;12(1):95-108 [PMID: 20930257]
  51. BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Jan 7;5(1):e002172 [PMID: 32095274]
  52. BMJ Glob Health. 2020 May;5(5): [PMID: 32381654]
  53. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021 Nov;8(11):941-942 [PMID: 34587476]
  54. BMJ Glob Health. 2022 May;7(5): [PMID: 35589151]
  55. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016 Feb 24;5(5):337-9 [PMID: 27239885]
  56. Lancet. 2021 Mar 20;397(10279):1058 [PMID: 33743860]
  57. Global Health. 2014 Dec 09;10:73 [PMID: 25487705]
  58. Annu Rev Public Health. 2021 Apr 1;42:345-362 [PMID: 33351647]
  59. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Apr 15;20(1):305 [PMID: 32293432]
  60. Adv Nutr. 2015 May 15;6(3):278-9 [PMID: 25979494]
  61. JAMA. 2007 Dec 5;298(21):2537-9 [PMID: 18056907]
  62. Soc Sci Med. 2012 Jan;74(1):6-13 [PMID: 21511377]
  63. PLoS One. 2018 Sep 26;13(9):e0203647 [PMID: 30256809]
  64. Med Educ. 2019 Jan;53(1):25-31 [PMID: 29974492]
  65. Health Policy Plan. 2022 Aug 3;37(7):932-934 [PMID: 35362537]
  66. Ann Glob Health. 2019 May 13;85(1): [PMID: 31099506]
  67. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473 [PMID: 30178033]
  68. Bull World Health Organ. 2013 Jul 1;91(7):483-90 [PMID: 23825875]
  69. Lancet. 2021 Dec 4;398(10316):2109-2124 [PMID: 34762857]
  70. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016 Jan 30;5(5):309-20 [PMID: 27239880]
  71. PLoS Med. 2010 Jan;7(1):e1000183 [PMID: 20052277]
  72. Lancet. 2018 Jul 21;392(10143):211 [PMID: 29914731]
  73. Health Policy Plan. 2019 Jun 1;34(5):346-357 [PMID: 31168568]
  74. Glob Public Health. 2008;3 Suppl 1:104-20 [PMID: 19288346]
  75. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Feb;6(2): [PMID: 33608321]
  76. Lancet. 2018 Apr 14;391(10129):1538-1548 [PMID: 29395268]
  77. Health Hum Rights. 2012 Jun 15;14(1):E20-35 [PMID: 22773095]
  78. Health Hum Rights. 2015 Dec 10;17(2):11-20 [PMID: 26766852]
  79. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Aug;6(8): [PMID: 34417275]
  80. BMJ. 2005 Oct 1;331(7519):718 [PMID: 16195280]
  81. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Jul;6(7): [PMID: 34321233]
  82. Int J Public Health. 2023 Jan 26;68:1605359 [PMID: 36776739]
  83. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2019 Jan-Apr;32(1):41-48 [PMID: 31512592]
  84. BMJ Glob Health. 2020 May;5(5): [PMID: 32409330]
  85. Glob Public Health. 2014;9(1-2):176-97 [PMID: 24499125]
  86. Health Info Libr J. 2019 Sep;36(3):202-222 [PMID: 31541534]
  87. Global Health. 2021 Sep 18;17(1):108 [PMID: 34537059]
  88. Implement Sci. 2015 Apr 16;10:49 [PMID: 25885787]
  89. Health Hum Rights. 2008;10(2):105-19 [PMID: 20845862]
  90. BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jul 24;4(4):e001719 [PMID: 31406597]
  91. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2021 Oct 18;106(1):250-256 [PMID: 34662869]
  92. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Sep;6(9): [PMID: 34489331]
  93. Lancet. 2019 Dec 7;394(10214):2119-2124 [PMID: 31785827]
  94. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2008 Jun;37(6):482-8 [PMID: 18618060]
  95. Int J Equity Health. 2020 Apr 6;19(1):50 [PMID: 32252764]
  96. Med Teach. 2011;33(8):626-31 [PMID: 21774648]
  97. Am J Med. 2012 Jun;125(6):612-7 [PMID: 22502955]
  98. J Bioeth Inq. 2015 Mar;12(1):137-46 [PMID: 25648123]
  99. Glob Health Action. 2022 Dec 31;15(1):2088083 [PMID: 36102365]

MeSH Term

Humans
Global Health
Social Responsibility

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0accountabilityprocessesglobalhealthpracticeHealthbetterfundingresearchcollaborationsreviewarticleslinesoutcomesinstitutionaldifferentactiontraininginformation'whoaccountablewhom'intended'accountabilitywhat'mappinglevelsincludedidentifiedinterinstitutionalactorsgapsexistingcreatesystemsINTRODUCTION:AccountabilitycomplexideaunpackinvolvesCallstranslatedunderstandingconceptsoughtanalyseMETHODS:studyliteraturesystematicallysearchedPubMedScopusformalchartedbasedvisualisedrepresentationaccordingimplementedRESULTS:53representingwiderangecontexts19specificvariousTargetsettingmonitoringcommonnetworkspeercheckinglitigationstrategiesenforcehealth-relatedrightsspecialbodiesbringaccountcommitmentsself-accountabilityinternalorganisationalmultipolarinvolvingtypesbroadersystemenhancedCONCLUSION:rebalancepowershownanalysingregardingusefulcharacteriseHoweveralsosuggestmustaccompaniedpoliticalengagementmobilisecollectiveconditionsculturethrivesanalysistraining:towardsconceptualclaritypoliciestopicspolicyPublic

Similar Articles

Cited By