When Is Community-Based Monitoring Effective? Evidence From a Randomized Experiment in Primary Health in Uganda

Björkman, Martina; Svensson, Jakob

doi:10.1111/j.1542-4774.2010.tb00527.x

Cited by 68 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Björkman and Svensson (2010), a follow up to Björkman and Svensson (2009), suggest that citizen participation may be threatened by differences within the community. They find that ‘income inequality, and particularly ethnic fractionalization, adversely impact collective action for improved service provision'.…”

Section: Results Of Mechanisms Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within community differences may result in heterogeneous participation (Björkman and Svensson, 2010). As Banerjee and Mullainathan (2008) argue, certain groups, especially the poor, are less likely to participate in monitoring activities because they have more pressing priorities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With this in mind, Björkman and Svensson (2010) argue that their results ‘have implications for both the design and evaluation of interventions aimed at strengthening beneficiary control in public service delivery programmes. On programme design, interventions should be adjusted to the local socio‐political situation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another issue that arose from this review is how to enhance collective action in socially heterogeneous communities. As Björkman and Svensson (2010) argue, ‘ideally the researchers should design the evaluation protocol so as to be able to assess the impact conditional on the socio‐political environments'.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Community monitoring interventions to curb corruption and increase access and quality of service delivery in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a systematic review

Molina¹,

Carella²,

Pacheco³

et al. 2016

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Campbell systematic review assesses the effectiveness of community monitoring interventions in reducing corruption. The review summarises findings from 15 studies, of which seven are from Asia, six from Africa and two from Latin America. Community monitoring interventions can reduce corruption. They also improve use of health services, but no significant effect is found on school enrolments or dropouts. There is no improvement in health service waiting times, but there is an improvement in weight for age, though not child mortality. There are beneficial effects on education outcomes as measured by test scores. Community monitoring interventions appear to be more effective in improving outcomes when they promote direct contact between citizens and providers or politicians, and when they include tools for citizens to monitor the performance of providers and politicians. In all cases, findings are based on a small number of studies. There is heterogeneity in the findings with respect to health and education. Hence it is difficult to provide any strong, overall conclusions about intervention effectiveness. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY COMMUNITY MONITORING INTERVENTIONS CAN REDUCE CORRUPTION AND MAY IMPROVE SERVICESCommunity monitoring interventions (CMIs) can reduce corruption. In some cases, but not all, there are positive effects on health and education outcomes. Further research is needed to understand contexts and designs for effective interventions. WHAT DID THE REVIEW STUDY?Corruption and inefficient allocation of resources in service delivery are widespread in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Community monitoring interventions (CMIs) are intended to address this problem. The community is given the opportunity to participate in monitoring service delivery: observing and assessing providers' performance to provide feedback to providers and politicians.This review assesses the evidence on the effects of community monitoring interventions on corruption and access and quality of service delivery outcomes. The review also considers the mechanism through which CMIs effect a change in corruption and service delivery outcomes, and possible moderating factors such as geographic region, income level or length of exposure to interventions. WHAT STUDIES ARE INCLUDED?To assess the effect on corruption included studies had to have either an experimental or a quasi‐experimental design. Qualitative studies were included to assess mechanisms and moderators.The review assesses 15 studies of 23 different programmes' intervention effects. The studies were conducted in Africa (6), Asia (7) and Latin America (2). Most studies focused on programmes in the education sector (9), followed by health (3), infrastructure (2) and employment promotion (1). WHAT ARE THE MAIN RESULTS OF THIS REVIEW?Community monitoring interventions can reduce corruption. They also improve use of health services, but no significant effect is found on school enrolments or dropouts. There is no improvement in health service waiting times, but there is an improve...

show abstract

Section: Results Of Mechanisms Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Community monitoring interventions to curb corruption and increase access and quality of service delivery in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a systematic review

Molina¹,

Carella²,

Pacheco³

et al. 2016

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In many resource-limited settings, low education rates paralleled by unequal power dynamics between health providers and patients make accountability challenging. Strategies to address these issues include holding public meetings about available services [22], making performance data publicly available [23], community-accountability checklists, and publishing health institution report cards [24]. …”

Section: The Quality Chasm In Resource-limited Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crossing the quality chasm in resource-limited settings

Maru

Andrews

Schwarz

et al. 2012

Globalization and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last decade, extensive scientific and policy innovations have begun to reduce the “quality chasm” - the gulf between best practices and actual implementation that exists in resource-rich medical settings. While limited data exist, this chasm is likely to be equally acute and deadly in resource-limited areas. While health systems have begun to be scaled up in impoverished areas, scale-up is just the foundation necessary to deliver effective healthcare to the poor. This perspective piece describes a vision for a global quality improvement movement in resource-limited areas. The following action items are a first step toward achieving this vision: 1) revise global health investment mechanisms to value quality; 2) enhance human resources for improving health systems quality; 3) scale up data capacity; 4) deepen community accountability and engagement initiatives; 5) implement evidence-based quality improvement programs; 6) develop an implementation science research agenda.

show abstract

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

Lowe

Ryan

Schonfeld

et al. 2021

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

When Is Community-Based Monitoring Effective? Evidence From a Randomized Experiment in Primary Health in Uganda

Cited by 68 publications

References 19 publications

Community monitoring interventions to curb corruption and increase access and quality of service delivery in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a systematic review

Community monitoring interventions to curb corruption and increase access and quality of service delivery in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a systematic review

Crossing the quality chasm in resource-limited settings

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About