BackgroundAccountability in global health is a commonly invoked though less commonly questioned concept. Critically reflecting on the concept and how it is put into practice, this paper focuses on the who, what, how, and where of accountability, mapping its defining features and considering them with respect to real-world circumstances. Changing dynamics in global health cooperation - such as the emergence of new health public-private partnerships and the formal inclusion of non-state actors in policy making processes - provides the backdrop to this discussion.DiscussionAccountability is frequently reduced to one set of actors holding another to account. Changes in the global health landscape and in relations between actors have however made the practice of accountability more complex and contested. Currently undergoing a reframing process, participation and transparency have become core elements of a new accountability agenda alongside evaluation and redress or enforcement mechanisms. However, while accountability is about holding actors responsible for their actions, the mechanisms through which this might be done vary substantially and are far from politically neutral.Accountability in global health cooperation involves multipolar relationships between a large number of stakeholders with varying degrees of power and influence, where not all interests are realised in that relationship. Moreover, accountability differs across finance, programme and governance subfields, where each has its own set of policy processes, institutional structures, accountability relations and power asymmetries to contend with. With reference to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, this paper contributes to discussions on accountability by mapping out key elements of the concept and how it is put into practice, where different types of accountability battle for recognition and legitimacy.SummaryIn mapping some defining features, accountability in global health cooperation is shown to be a complex problem not necessarily reducible to one set of actors holding another to account. Clear tensions are observed between multi-stakeholder participatory models and more traditional vertical models that prioritise accountability upwards to donors, both of which are embodied in initiatives like the Global Fund. For multi-constituency organisations, this poses challenges not only for future financing but also for future legitimacy.
Exploring the views of those impacted by stroke is key to the design of an effective and appropriate cognitive rehabilitation intervention for post-stroke cognitive impairment. This qualitative study examined the perspectives and preferences of stroke survivors, carers, and healthcare professionals to inform the design of a cognitive rehabilitation intervention. Design & MethodsThe research employed a qualitative study design and thematic analysis of data. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with stroke survivors (n=14), carers (n=11), and healthcare professionals involved in providing stroke care (n=19). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Coding was conducted and themes were developed both inductively and deductively. ResultsThemes address five broad areas relevant for the design and implementation of the intervention: i) activities to include; ii) when it takes place; iii) location; vi) format; v) who the intervention should include. ConclusionsQualitative work with stroke survivors, carers and healthcare professionals provided vital information for the intervention design. Issues identified by participants as being key to intervention development included: i) implications of post-stroke cognitive impairment survivors' confidence; ii) their individual capacity in terms of fatigue and metacognition; and iii) practical issues such as intervention location. The inclusion of psychoeducation regarding consequences of stroke was recommended.
Introduction Recent advances in stroke management and care have resulted in improved survival and outcomes. However, providing equitable access to acute care, rehabilitation and longer-term stroke care is challenging. Recent Irish evidence indicates variation in stroke outcomes across hospitals, and a need for continuous audit of stroke care to support quality improvement. The aim of this project is to develop a core minimum dataset for use in the new Irish National Audit of Stroke (INAS), which aims to improve the standard of stroke care in Ireland. This paper outlines the protocol for conducting a scoping review of international practice and guidelines in auditing acute and non-acute stroke care. Objective Identify data items that are currently collected by stroke audits internationally, and identify audit guidelines that exist for recommending inclusion of content in stroke audit datasets. Methods and analysis This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will search the following databases: Medline Ovid; Embase; CINAHL EBSCOHost. Grey literature will also be searched for relevant materials, as will relevant websites. Study selection and review will be carried out independently by two researchers, with discrepancies resolved by a third. Data charting and synthesis will involve sub-dividing relevant sources of evidence, and synthesising data into three categories: i) acute stroke care; ii) non-acute stroke care; and iii) audit data collection procedures and resourcing. Data will be charted using a standardised form specific to each category. Consultation with knowledge users will be conducted at all stages of the scoping review. Discussion This scoping review will contribute to a larger project aimed at developing an internationally benchmarked stroke audit tool that will be used prospectively to collect data on all stroke admissions in Ireland, encompassing both acute and non-acute data items.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.