Suchergebnisse

Multisectoral action is key to addressing many pressing global health challenges and critical for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, but to-date, understanding about how best to promote and support multisectoral action for health is relatively limited. The challenges to multisectoral action may be more acute in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) where institutions are frequently weak, and fragmentation, even within the health sector, can undermine coordination. We apply the lens of governance to understand challenges to multisectoral action. This paper (1) provides a high level overview of possible disciplines, frameworks and theories that could be applied to enrich analyses in this field; (2) summarises the literature that has sought to describe governance of multisectoral action for health in LMICs using a simple political economy framework that identifies interests, institutions and ideas and (3) introduces the papers in the supplement. Our review highlights the diverse, but often political nature of factors influencing the success of multisectoral action. Key factors include the importance of high level political commitment; the incentives for competition versus collaboration between bureaucratic agencies and the extent to which there is common understanding across actors about the problem. The supplement papers seek to promote debate and understanding about research and practice approaches to the governance of multisectoral action and illustrate salient issues through case studies. The papers here are unable to cover all aspects of this topic, but in the final two papers, we seek to develop an agenda for future action. This paper introduces a supplement on the governance of multisectoral action for health. While many case studies exist in this domain, we identify a need for greater theory-based conceptualisation of multisectoral action and more sophisticated empirical investigation of such collaborations.

Health inequities are clear evidence of violations of the right to health. Yet despite this common ground, action on the social determinants of health aiming to reduce health inequities is sometimes disconnected from implementation of human rights-based approaches. This is explained in part by differing histories, disciplines, and epistemologies. The capacity of human rights instruments to alter policies on social determinants can seem limited. An absolutist focus on individuals and processes can seem at odds with the attention to differences in population health outcomes central to the concern for health equity. However, developments in rights-based approaches have seen the terrain of human rights increasingly address social determinants. Human rights provide a firm legal basis for tackling the inequities in power and resources that the Commission on Social Determinants of Health identifies as fundamental to achieving health equity. Indicators and benchmarks developed for rights-based approaches to health systems can be developed further within health sectors and translated to other sectors and disciplines. The discourse and evidence base of social determinants can also contribute to implementing rights-based approaches, as its resultant policy momentum can provide essential levers to realize the right to health. Therefore, there is no clear-cut delineation between the human rights and health equity movements, and both may constructively work together to realize their goals. Such constructive collaboration will not prove straightforward; it will, instead, require profound engagement and innovations in both theory and practice. Yet this effort represents an important opportunity for those who seek social justice in health. Adapted from the source document.

Drawing on experiences reviewed in the accompanying supplement and other literature, we present an agenda for the way forward for policy-makers, managers, civil society and development partners to govern multisectoral action for health in low-income and middle-income countries and consider how such an agenda might be realised. We propose the following key strategies: understand the key actors and political ecosystem, including type of multisectoral action required and mapping incentives, interests and hierarchies; frame the issue in the most strategic manner; define clear roles with specific sets of interventions according to sector; use existing structures unless there is a compelling reason not to do so; pay explicit attention to the roles of non-state sectors; address conflicts of interest and manage tradeoffs; distribute leadership; develop financing and monitoring systems to encourage collaboration; strengthen implementation processes and capacity; and support mutual learning and implementation research. To support countries to strengthen governance for multisectoral action, the global community can assist by further developing technical tools and convening peer learning by policy-makers (particularly from beyond the health sector), supporting knowledge management and sharing of experiences in multisectoral action beyond health, developing an agenda for and execution of implementation research and, finally, driving multilateral and bilateral development partners to transcend their own silos and work in a more multisectoral manner.

BACKGROUND: The Global Financing Facility (GFF) offers an opportunity to close the financing gap that holds back gains in women, children's and adolescent health. However, very little work exists examining GFF practice, particularly for adolescent health. As momentum builds for the GFF, we examine initial GFF planning documents to inform future national and multi-lateral efforts to advance adolescent sexual and reproductive health. METHODS: We undertook a content analysis of the first 11 GFF Investment Cases and Project Appraisal Documents available on the GFF website. The countries involved include Bangladesh, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Kenya, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda. RESULTS: While several country documents signal understanding and investment in adolescents as a strategic area, this is not consistent across all countries, nor between Investment Cases and Project Appraisal Documents. In both types of documents commitments weaken as one moves from programming content to indicators to investment. Important contributions include how teenage pregnancy is a universal concern, how adolescent and youth friendly health services and school-based programs are supported in several country documents, how gender is noted as a key social determinant critical for mainstreaming across the health system, alongside the importance of multi-sectoral collaboration, and the acknowledgement of adolescent rights. Weaknesses include the lack of comprehensive analysis of adolescent health needs, inconsistent investments in adolescent friendly health services and school based programs, missed opportunities in not supporting multi-component and multi-level initiatives to change gender norms involving adolescent boys in addition to adolescent girls, and neglect of governance approaches to broker effective multi-sectoral collaboration, community engagement and adolescent involvement. CONCLUSION: There are important examples of how the GFF supports adolescents and their sexual and ...

BACKGROUND: The Global Financing Facility (GFF) offers an opportunity to close the financing gap that holds back gains in women, children's and adolescent health. However, very little work exists examining GFF practice, particularly for adolescent health. As momentum builds for the GFF, we examine initial GFF planning documents to inform future national and multi-lateral efforts to advance adolescent sexual and reproductive health. METHODS: We undertook a content analysis of the first 11 GFF Investment Cases and Project Appraisal Documents available on the GFF website. The countries involved include Bangladesh, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Kenya, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda. RESULTS: While several country documents signal understanding and investment in adolescents as a strategic area, this is not consistent across all countries, nor between Investment Cases and Project Appraisal Documents. In both types of documents commitments weaken as one moves from programming content to indicators to investment. Important contributions include how teenage pregnancy is a universal concern, how adolescent and youth friendly health services and school-based programs are supported in several country documents, how gender is noted as a key social determinant critical for mainstreaming across the health system, alongside the importance of multi-sectoral collaboration, and the acknowledgement of adolescent rights. Weaknesses include the lack of comprehensive analysis of adolescent health needs, inconsistent investments in adolescent friendly health services and school based programs, missed opportunities in not supporting multi-component and multi-level initiatives to change gender norms involving adolescent boys in addition to adolescent girls, and neglect of governance approaches to broker effective multi-sectoral collaboration, community engagement and adolescent involvement. CONCLUSION: There are important examples of how the GFF supports adolescents and their sexual and ...