ArticleGlobalization and health2015
Conceptual and institutional gaps: understanding how the WHO can become a more effective cross-sectoral collaborator.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emergent patterns in global health diplomacy: a network analysis of the resolutions adopted by the World Health Assembly from 1948 to 2022.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- A 'whole of United Nations approach' to tackle antimicrobial resistance? A mapping of the mandate and activities of international organisations.BMJ global health · 2022Review
- How can WHO transform its approach to social determinants of health?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Article
- Promoting Intersectoral Collaboration Through the Evaluations of Public Health Interventions: Insights From Key Informants in 6 European Countries.International journal of health policy and management · 2021Article
- The financial sustainability of the World Health Organization and the political economy of global health governance: a review of funding proposals.Globalization and health · 2018Review
- Scientific Advisory Committees at the World Health Organization: A Qualitative Study of How Their Design Affects Quality, Relevance, and Legitimacy.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2018Article
- Delays in Global Disease Outbreak Responses: Lessons from H1N1, Ebola, and Zika.American journal of public health · 2018Article
- Institutionalising an evidence-informed approach to guideline development: progress and challenges at the World Health Organization.BMJ global health · 2018Article
- Mapping global policy discourse on antimicrobial resistance.BMJ global health · 2017Article
- Article
- Civil society: the catalyst for ensuring health in the age of sustainable development.Globalization and health · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.