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

Abstract

IntroductionAccountability 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionTo 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.

An expenditure analysis revealing how Philip Morris advertisements coincide with tobacco policymaking in Switzerland

“…Current accountability mechanisms for the TI are notably lacking, highlighting an urgent need to explore and establish effective mechanisms that will hold the tobacco industry, including powerful entities like PMI, to account. These accountability mechanisms should encompass a comprehensive approach, integrating institutional, interinstitutional, and systems-level activities, along with political engagement, to effectively address and mitigate TI influence 38 . Given that Switzerland has failed to ratify the FCTC, we recommend strengthening accountability through mechanisms outside the framework provided by an international convention.…”

Strengthening systems of accountability for women’s leadership in the health sector

“…Mechanisms for accountability can include clinical audits, professional training requirements, and ultimately public scrutiny under the auspices of public inquiries, courts, or parliamentary review. 2 In this analysis, we move beyond the question of accountability for healthcare delivery and explore accountability for equality of opportunity in health sector careers, with a focus on women’s leadership. We use a broad definition of the health sector to include public and private health organisations beyond those directly delivering care.…”