Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36171604›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal for equity in health2022

Multi-level change strategies for health: learning from people-centered advocacy in Uganda.

Angela Bailey, Vincent Mujune

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal for equity in health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Perceived Public Participation and Health Delivery in Local Government Districts in Uganda.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angela BaileyAccountability Research Center, American University School of International Service, Washington, D.C., USA. baileyangela@gmail.com.
Vincent MujuneStrongMinds in Uganda, Kampala, Uganda.
American University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe paper analyzes how the Accountability Can Transform Health (ACT Health) program activated bottom-up citizen action to secure government responses and more accountable health services in Uganda. The ACT Health program had two phases-Phase 1 focused on a community-level intervention studied with a randomized control trial, and Phase 2 supported citizen-led advocacy targeting government officials across multiple levels. The focus of this paper is an analysis of Phase 2, when the "people-centered advocacy" approach supported almost 400 community advocates representing 98 health facilities to organize, identify joint advocacy priorities, directly monitor health services, and collaborate on health advocacy campaigns in 18 districts. Most district campaigns focused on the complex, power-laden issue of health worker absenteeism. With a few notable exceptions, iterative cycles of engagement between citizens and the state across multiple levels are infrequently discussed in the formal literature on health accountability.

methodsThis paper is based on a comparative, inductive, practitioner-led analysis of program monitoring data from 18 multi-level health advocacy campaigns. The findings emerge from analysis of a "Heat Map," capturing grounded accounts of government responses to community-led advocacy.

resultsOfficials in eight out of 18 districts fulfilled or surpassed commitments made to community advocates. Government responses included: increased monitoring, more downward accountability, countering backlash against advocates, applying sanctions for absent health workers, and increased budget allocations. Advocates' bottom-up advocacy worked in part through triggering top-down responses and activating governmental checks and balances.

conclusionsMethodologically, this article demonstrates the value of analyzing process monitoring and program data to understand outcomes from direct engagement between citizens and the state to improve health services. Survey-based research methods and quantitative analysis may fail to capture signs of government responsiveness and relational outcomes (such as subtle signs of shifting power dynamics) many hope to see from citizen-led accountability efforts. Practitioners' perspectives on how accountability for health emerges in practice are important correctives to much positivist research on accountability, which has a tendency to ignore the complex dynamics and processes of building citizen power.

Indexed as

Health ServicesSocial ResponsibilityGovernmentGovernment EmployeesHumansUgandaCommunity monitoringHealth accountabilityHealth advocacyMulti-level advocacy strategiesParticipatory governancePeople-centered advocacyProcess monitoringSocial accountability

Identifiers

PMID36171604
PMCPMC9520791
OpenAlexW4297521537

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.