↓ Skip to main content

Conceptual and institutional gaps: understanding how the WHO can become a more effective cross-sectoral collaborator

Overview of attention for article published in Globalization and Health, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
66 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Conceptual and institutional gaps: understanding how the WHO can become a more effective cross-sectoral collaborator
Published in
Globalization and Health, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12992-015-0128-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Unni Gopinathan, Nicholas Watts, Daniel Hougendobler, Alex Lefebvre, Arthur Cheung, Steven J. Hoffman, John-Arne Røttingen

Abstract

Two themes consistently emerge from the broad range of academics, policymakers and opinion leaders who have proposed changes to the World Health Organization (WHO): that reform efforts are too slow, and that they do too little to strengthen WHO's capacity to facilitate cross-sectoral collaboration. This study seeks to identify possible explanations for the challenges WHO faces in addressing the broader determinants of health, and the potential opportunities for working across sectors. This qualitative study used a mixed methods approach of semi-structured interviews and document review. Five interviewees were selected by stratified purposive sampling within a sampling frame of approximately 45 potential interviewees, and a targeted document review was conducted. All interviewees were senior WHO staff at the department director level or above. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data from interview transcripts, field notes, and the document review, and data coded during the analysis was analyzed against three central research questions. First, how does WHO conceptualize its mandate in global health? Second, what are the barriers and enablers to enhancing cross-sectoral collaboration between WHO and other intergovernmental organizations? Third, how do the dominant conceptual frames and the identified barriers and enablers to cross-sectoral collaboration interact? Analysis of the interviews and documents revealed three main themes: 1) WHO's role must evolve to meet the global challenges and societal changes of the 21st century; 2) WHO's cross-sectoral engagement is hampered internally by a dominant biomedical view of health, and the prevailing institutions and incentives that entrench this view; and 3) WHO's cross-sectoral engagement is hampered externally by siloed areas of focus for each intergovernmental organization, and the lack of adequate conceptual frameworks and institutional mechanisms to facilitate engagement across siloes. There are a number of external and internal pressures on WHO which have created an organizational culture and operational structure that focuses on a narrow, technical approach to global health, prioritizing disease-based, siloed interventions over more complex approaches that span sectors. The broader approach to promoting human health and wellbeing, which is conceptualized in WHO's constitution, requires cultural and institutional changes for it to be fully implemented.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 92 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 20%
Student > Master 16 17%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 9%
Psychology 5 5%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 21 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,019,007
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Globalization and Health
#131
of 1,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,018
of 399,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Globalization and Health
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,220 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.