Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38795056›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2024

Bilateral health agreements of South Africa: an analysis of issues covered.

Johanna Hanefeld, Moeketsi Modisenyane, Jo Vearey, Neil Lunt, Richard Smith, Helen Walls

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Johanna HanefeldFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H9SH, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9487-2333
Moeketsi ModisenyaneFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H9SH, UK.
Jo VeareyAfrican Centre of Migration and Society, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2050, South Africa.
Neil LuntDepartment of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.
Richard SmithCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter EX1 2HZ, UK.
Helen WallsFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H9SH, UK.

Funding

Department of International Development, the Economic and Social Research CouncilHealth Systems Research Initiative MR/M002160/1Medical Research CouncilUnited Kingdom's Department of International Development, the Economic and Social Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The bilateral agreements signed between South Africa and countries in Southern and Eastern Africa are a rare example of efforts to regulate health-related issues in a world region. As far as we know, there are no comparable bilateral health governance mechanisms in regions elsewhere. Furthermore, the rapidly growing literature on global health governance and governance for global health has to date not addressed the issue of patient mobility and how to govern it. In this study, we examine the issues included in these agreements, highlight key issues that they address, identify areas of omission and provide recommendations for improvement. This analysis should inform the development of such governance agreements both in Southern Africa and in regions elsewhere. We obtained 13 bilateral health agreements between South Africa and 11 neighbouring African countries as part of a broader research project examining the impact on health systems of patient mobility in South Africa, and thematically analysed their content and the governance mechanisms described. The agreements appear to be solidarity mechanisms between neighbouring countries. They contain considerable content on health diplomacy, with little on health governance, management and delivery. Nonetheless, given what they do and do not address, and how, they provide a rare insight into mechanisms of global health diplomacy and attempts to address patient mobility and other health-related issues in practice. The agreements appear to be global health diplomacy mechanisms expressing solidarity, emerging from a post-apartheid period, but with little detail of issues covered, and a range of important issues not addressed. Further empirical work is required to understand what these documents mean, particularly in the Covid-19 context, and to understand challenges with their implementation. The documents also raise the need for particular study of bilateral flows and experience of patients and health workers, and how this relates to health system strengthening.

Indexed as

International CooperationCOVID-19Delivery of Health CareGlobal HealthHealth PolicyHumansSouth AfricaGovernancehealthSouth Africatrade

Identifiers

PMID38795056
PMCPMC11308612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.