↓ Skip to main content

Exploring corruption in the South African health sector

Overview of attention for article published in Health Policy & Planning, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 1,919)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 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
Exploring corruption in the South African health sector
Published in
Health Policy & Planning, June 2015
DOI 10.1093/heapol/czv047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laetitia C Rispel, Pieter de Jager, Sharon Fonn

Abstract

Recent scholarly attention has focused on weak governance and the negative effects of corruption on the provision of health services. Employing agency theory, this article discusses corruption in the South African health sector. We used a combination of research methods and triangulated data from three sources: Auditor-General of South Africa reports for each province covering a 9-year period; 13 semi-structured interviews with health sector key informants and a content analysis of print media reports covering a 3-year period. Findings from the Auditor-General reports showed a worsening trend in audit outcomes with marked variation across the nine provinces. Key-informants indicated that corruption has a negative effect on patient care and the morale of healthcare workers. The majority of the print media reports on corruption concerned the public health sector (63%) and involved provincial health departments (45%). Characteristics and complexity of the public health sector may increase its vulnerability to corruption, but the private-public binary constitutes a false dichotomy as corruption often involves agents from both sectors. Notwithstanding the lack of global validated indicators to measure corruption, our findings suggest that corruption is a problem in the South African healthcare sector. Corruption is influenced by adverse agent selection, lack of mechanisms to detect corruption and a failure to sanction those involved in corrupt activities. We conclude that appropriate legislation is a necessary, but not sufficient intervention to reduce corruption. We propose that mechanisms to reduce corruption must include the political will to run corruption-free health services, effective government to enforce laws, appropriate systems, and citizen involvement and advocacy to hold public officials accountable. Importantly, the institutionalization of a functional bureaucracy and public servants with the right skills, competencies, ethics and value systems and whose interests are aligned with health system goals are critical interventions in the fight against corruption.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 178 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 14%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Other 36 20%
Unknown 19 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 30 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 28 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 12 7%
Other 31 17%
Unknown 32 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 01 January 2020.
All research outputs
#437,760
of 16,522,185 outputs
Outputs from Health Policy & Planning
#46
of 1,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,037
of 235,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Policy & Planning
#1
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,522,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,919 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 235,497 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.