BackgroundTwo themes consistently emerge from the broad range of academics, policymakers and opinion leaders who have proposed changes to the World Health Organization (WHO): that reform efforts are too slow, and that they do too little to strengthen WHO’s capacity to facilitate cross-sectoral collaboration. This study seeks to identify possible explanations for the challenges WHO faces in addressing the broader determinants of health, and the potential opportunities for working across sectors.MethodsThis qualitative study used a mixed methods approach of semi-structured interviews and document review. Five interviewees were selected by stratified purposive sampling within a sampling frame of approximately 45 potential interviewees, and a targeted document review was conducted. All interviewees were senior WHO staff at the department director level or above. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data from interview transcripts, field notes, and the document review, and data coded during the analysis was analyzed against three central research questions. First, how does WHO conceptualize its mandate in global health? Second, what are the barriers and enablers to enhancing cross-sectoral collaboration between WHO and other intergovernmental organizations? Third, how do the dominant conceptual frames and the identified barriers and enablers to cross-sectoral collaboration interact?ResultsAnalysis of the interviews and documents revealed three main themes: 1) WHO’s role must evolve to meet the global challenges and societal changes of the 21st century; 2) WHO’s cross-sectoral engagement is hampered internally by a dominant biomedical view of health, and the prevailing institutions and incentives that entrench this view; and 3) WHO’s cross-sectoral engagement is hampered externally by siloed areas of focus for each intergovernmental organization, and the lack of adequate conceptual frameworks and institutional mechanisms to facilitate engagement across siloes.ConclusionThere are a number of external and internal pressures on WHO which have created an organizational culture and operational structure that focuses on a narrow, technical approach to global health, prioritizing disease-based, siloed interventions over more complex approaches that span sectors. The broader approach to promoting human health and wellbeing, which is conceptualized in WHO’s constitution, requires cultural and institutional changes for it to be fully implemented.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12992-015-0128-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

This comparative case study investigated how two intergovernmental organisations without formal health mandates - the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) - have engaged with global health issues. Triangulating insights from key institutional documents, ten semi-structured interviews with senior officials, and scholarly books tracing the history of both organisations, the study identified an evolving and broadened engagement with global health issues in UNDP and WTO. Within WTO, the dominant view was that enhancing international trade is instrumental to improving global health, although the need to resolve tensions between public health objectives and WTO agreements was recognised. For UNDP, interviewees reported that the agency gained prominence in global health for its response to HIV/AIDS in the 1990s and early 2000s. Learning from that experience, the agency has evolved and expanded its role in two respects: it has increasingly facilitated processes to provide global normative direction for global health issues such as HIV/AIDS and access to medicines, and it has expanded its focus beyond HIV/AIDS. Overall, the study findings suggest the need for seeking greater integration among international institutions, closing key global institutional gaps, and establishing a shared global institutional space for promoting action on the broader determinants of health.

No abstract