PROTOCOL: Community Monitoring Interventions to Curb Corruption and Increase Access and Quality in Service Delivery in Low ‐ and Middle‐income Countries: A Systematic Review

Molina, Ezequiel; Pacheco, Ana; Gasparini, Leonardo; Cruces, Guillermo; Rius, Andrés

doi:10.1002/cl2.105

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Corruption also might inhibit the improvement of services and the ability of reform to improve a range of services (Ensor 2004 ). Corruption increases the cost of key public services and might limit the access for those least able to pay (Falkingham 2004 ; Rose-Ackerman 2004 ; Szende 2006 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to reduce corruption in the health sector

Gaitonde

Oxman

Okebukola

et al. 2016

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Corruption is the abuse or complicity in abuse, of public or private position, power or authority to benefit oneself, a group, an organisation or others close to oneself; where the benefits may be financial, material or non-material. It is wide-spread in the health sector and represents a major problem. Objectives Our primary objective was to systematically summarise empirical evidence of the effects of strategies to reduce corruption in the health sector. Our secondary objective was to describe the range of strategies that have been tried and to guide future evaluations of promising strategies for which there is insufficient evidence. Search methods We searched 14 electronic databases up to January 2014, including: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; EMBASE; sociological, economic, political and other health databases; Human Resources Abstracts up to November 2010; Euroethics up to August 2015; and PubMed alerts from January 2014 to June 2016. We searched another 23 websites and online databases for grey literature up to August 2015, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, Transparency International, healthcare anti-fraud association websites and trial registries. We conducted citation searches in Science Citation Index and Google Scholar, and searched PubMed for related articles up to August 2015. We contacted corruption researchers in December 2015, and screened reference lists of articles up to May 2016. Selection criteria For the primary analysis, we included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time series studies and controlled before-after studies that evaluated the effects of an intervention to reduce corruption in the health sector. For the secondary analysis, we included case studies that clearly described an intervention to reduce corruption in the health sector, addressed either our primary or secondary objective, and stated the methods that the study authors used to collect and analyse data. Data collection and analysis One review author extracted data from the included studies and a second review author checked the extracted data against the reports of the included studies. We undertook a structured synthesis of the findings. We constructed a results table and 'Summaries of findings' tables. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. Main results No studies met the inclusion criteria of the primary analysis. We included nine studies that met the inclusion criteria for the secondary analysis. One study found that a package of interventions coordinated by the US Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice recovered a large amount of money and resulted in hundreds of new cases and convictions each year (high certainty of the evidence). Another study ...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%