ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1996
Who should be doing what in the international health: a confusion of mandates in the United Nations?
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lost in Translation: Piloting a Novel Framework to Assess the Challenges in Translating Scientific Uncertainty From Empirical Findings to WHO Policy Statements.International journal of health policy and management · 2017Article
- WHO: retirement or reinvention?Public health · 2014Article
- Global Health Governance at a Crossroads.Global health governance : the scholarly journal for the new health security paradigm · 2011Article
- Civil Society Organizations and the Functions of Global Health Governance: What Role within Intergovernmental Organizations?Global health governance : the scholarly journal for the new health security paradigm · 2010Article
- A World Health Organization primer.MedGenMed : Medscape general medicine · 2007Review
- Globalisation and public health.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2002Article
- International health services need an interorganizational policy.American journal of public health · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since 1945 at least five United Nations organisations have become substantially involved in international health activities. This has led to considerable confusion among policy makers, scholars, and UN staff over distinct and appropriate mandates. Interviews with staff an a historical analysis have shown that while formal mandates have been complementary, effective mandates have led to an unclear delineation of activities. The process of translating formal into effective mandates have been influenced by the decentralised nature of the UN, lack of a master plan for its activities, the considerable growth in the policy agenda and the shift towards a multisectoral approach to health. The identification of each organisation's comparative advantage, at both the global and country levels, is one way of understanding what each organisation does best and perhaps should be doing. There is a need for improved mechanisms to define effective mandates, taking into account comparative advantages, if the mandates of UN organisations are appropriate to meet future challenges in international health.
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.