↓ Skip to main content

How do accountability problems lead to maternal health inequities? A review of qualitative literature from Indian public sector

Overview of attention for article published in Public Health Reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
How do accountability problems lead to maternal health inequities? A review of qualitative literature from Indian public sector
Published in
Public Health Reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40985-018-0081-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mukesh Hamal, Marjolein Dieleman, Vincent De Brouwere, Tjard de Cock Buning

Abstract

There are several studies from different geographical settings and levels on maternal health, but none analyzes how accountability problems may contribute to the maternal health outcomes. This study aimed to analyze how accountability problems in public health system lead to maternal deaths and inequities in India. A conceptual framework was developed bringing together accountability process (in terms of standard setting, performance assessment, accountability (or answerability, and enforceability) -an ongoing cyclical feedback process at different levels of health system) and determinants of maternal health to analyze the influence of the process on the determinant leading to maternal health outcomes. A scoping review of qualitative and mixed-methods studies from public health sector in India was conducted. A narrative and interpretive synthesis approach was applied to analyze data. An overarching influence of health system-related factors over non-health system-related factors leading to maternal deaths and inequities was observed. A potential link among such factors was identified with gaps in accountability functions at all levels of health system pertaining to policy gaps or conflicting/discriminatory policies and political commitment. A large number of gaps were also observed concerning performance or implementation of existing standards. Inherent to these issues was potentially a lack of proper monitoring and accountability functions. A critical role of power was observed influencing the accountability functions. The narrative and interpretive synthesis approach allowed to integrate and reframe the relevant comparable information from the limited empirical studies to identify the hot spots of systemic flaws from an accountability perspective. The framework highlighted problems in health system beyond health service delivery to wider areas such as policy or politics justifying their relevance and importance in such analysis. A crucial message from the study pertains to a need to move away from the traditional concept of viewing accountability as a blame-game approach and a concern of limited frontline health workers towards a constructive and systemic approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 16%
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 8 6%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 43 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 29 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 46 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 05 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,569,166
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Public Health Reviews
#71
of 278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,902
of 351,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Health Reviews
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 278 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 351,776 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.