Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30925889›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019

Studying social accountability in the context of health system strengthening: innovations and considerations for future work.

Victoria Boydell, Heather McMullen, Joanna Cordero, Petrus Steyn, James Kiare

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. "I Don't Want to Read About It; I Want to Do It": Perspectives onAdvances in medical education and practice · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Social Accountability in Clinical Education: A Scoping Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Social accountability challenges and recommendations by community service rehabilitation therapists.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Victoria BoydellGlobal Health Centre, Geneva Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland. vickyboydell@googlemail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5051-9167
Heather McMullenQueen Mary, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Joanna CorderoHuman Reproduction Program, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Petrus SteynHuman Reproduction Program, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
James KiareHuman Reproduction Program, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2012-05-454World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing body of research on the role of social accountability in bringing about more accessible and better-quality healthcare. Here, we refer to social accountability as "citizens' efforts at ongoing meaningful collective engagement with public institutions for accountability in the provision of public goods" (Joshi, World Dev 99:160-172, 2017). These processes have multiple interrelated components and sub-processes and engage a range of actors in community-driven, often unpredictable and context-dependent actions, which pose many methodological challenges for researchers. In June 2017, scientists and implementers working in this area came together to share experiences, discuss approaches, identify research gaps and consider directions for future studies. This paper shares learnings from this discussion.In particular, participants considered (1) how best to define and measure the complex processual nature of social accountability; (2) the study of social accountability as an inherently political process; and (3) the challenges of generalising unpredictable, community-driven and context-dependent processes. Key among a range of consensus areas was the need for researchers to capture a broader range of outcomes and better understand the nuances of implementation processes in order to effectively test theories and assumptions. Furthermore, power relationships are inherent in social accountability and the research process itself. In presenting details on these deliberations, we hope to prompt a wider discussion on the study of social accountability in health programming.

Indexed as

Community-Institutional RelationsCommunity ParticipationQuality of Health CareResearch DesignSocial ResponsibilityHumansPoliticsPower, PsychologicalResearch Personnelmaternal healthmethodologysexual and reproductive healthSocial accountabilitystudy design

Identifiers

PMID30925889
PMCPMC6440124

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.