Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26596963›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2015

Conceptual and institutional gaps: understanding how the WHO can become a more effective cross-sectoral collaborator.

Unni Gopinathan, Nicholas Watts, Daniel Hougendobler, Alex Lefebvre, Arthur Cheung, Steven J Hoffman, John-Arne Røttingen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Unni GopinathanInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. unni.gnathan@gmail.com.
Nicholas WattsInstitute of Global Health, University College London, London, UK. wattsn03@gmail.com.
Daniel HougendoblerO'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC, USA. dan.hougendobler@gmail.com.
Alex LefebvreFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. alex.lefebvr@gmail.com.
Arthur CheungSchool of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. arthurtlcheung@gmail.com.
Steven J HoffmanGlobal Strategy Lab, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. Steven.hoffman@uottawa.ca.
John-Arne RøttingenDivision of Environmental Health and Infectious Disease Control, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. john-arne.rottingen@fhi.no.
Georgetown University · USNorwegian Institute of Public Health · NOThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity College London · GBUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Oslo · NOUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Health Care ReformOrganizational CultureOrganizational InnovationCooperative BehaviorHumansQualitative ResearchWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID26596963
PMCPMC4657201
OpenAlexW2177789328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.