ArticleGlobalization and health2026
From ground realities to policy: a framework for assessing multipolar health system governance in conflict-affected and high-risk areas.
Article in Globalization and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionUnderstanding and evaluating health system governance is essential for resilient health systems. This study develops a framework to analyse health system governance in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, including fragmented systems.
methodsThe methodology adopts a qualitative multi-faceted approach, encompassing five methods: consultations with experts, thematic analysis of existing health system governance frameworks, focus group discussions, interviews with key informants, and reflections from primary authors during fieldwork. The discussion centred on examples primarily drawn from northwest Syria throughout the conflict (2011-2024).
findingsExisting health system governance frameworks are less relevant in conflict-affected and high-risk areas. The authors developed a new institutional framework by adding more dimensions to well-known principle-based frameworks, such as Siddiqi et al., to address the complexities imposed by conflicts. The framework has a descriptive part that includes power dynamics (types and dimensions) and stakeholders' traditional and non-traditional roles and responsibilities. Additionally, it has an evaluative part that includes eleven principles: strategic vision; participation and consensus orientation; rule of law and ethics; intelligence and conflict-sensitive transparency; responsiveness; equity and inclusiveness; effectiveness and efficiency; complex accountability; complementarity; localisation; and legitimacy.
conclusionThe proposed framework can deal with fragmented health systems characterised by multipolar health systems. It is typically applicable in conflict-affected and high-risk areas. It provides policymakers with a structured approach to describing and evaluating health system governance.
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.