Sparking, supporting and steering change: Grounding an accountability framework with viewpoints from Nigerian routine immunization and primary health care government officials

13Citations
Citations of this article
90Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Existing accountability efforts in Nigeria primarily serve as retrospective policing. To enable accountability to guide change prospectively and preemptively, we drew from a literature review to develop a framework that highlights mutually reinforcing dimensions of accountability in health systems along three counterbalancing axes. The axis of power sparks change by wielding 'sticks' that curb the potential abuse of power, but also by offering 'carrots' that motivate constructive agency. The axis of ability supports change by enabling service delivery actors with formal rules that appropriately expand their authority to act, but also the informal norms and inputs for improved performance. Last, the axis of justice orients the strategic direction of change, balancing political representation, community ownership and social equity, so that accountability measures are progressive, rather than being captured by self-interests. We consulted Nigerian government officials to understand their viewpoints on accountability and mapped their responses to our evolving framework. All government officials (n=36) participating in three zonal workshops on routine immunization filled out questionnaires that listed the top three opportunities and challenges to strengthening accountability. Thematically coded responses highlighted dimensions of accountability within the axes of ability and power: Clarifying formal roles and responsibilities; transparency, data and monitoring systems; availability of skilled health personnel that are motivated and supervised; addressing informal norms and behaviours; and availability of inputs regarding funding and supplies. Other dimensions of accountability were mentioned but were not as critical from their viewpoints: Managerial discretion; sanctions and enforcements; political influence and community engagement. Strikingly, almost no respondents mentioned social equity as being an important aspect of accountability, although a few mentioned broad development concerns that reflected community perspectives. Reframing accountability as a means of sparking, supporting and steering change can highlight different dimensions of health systems that need reform, particularly depending on the positionality of the viewpoints consulted.

References Powered by Scopus

Accountability and health systems: Toward conceptual clarity and policy relevance

281Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A systematic review of the literature for evidence on health facility committees in low- and middle-income countries

137Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Community accountability at peripheral health facilities: A review of the empirical literature and development of a conceptual framework

125Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Adolescent health in the Sustainable Development Goal era: Are we aligned for multisectoral action?

20Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

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

18Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Understanding internal accountability in Nigeria’s routine immunization system: Perspectives from government officials at the national, state, and local levels

15Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

George, A. S., Erchick, D. J., Zubairu, M. M., Barau, I. Y., & Wonodi, C. (2016, November 1). Sparking, supporting and steering change: Grounding an accountability framework with viewpoints from Nigerian routine immunization and primary health care government officials. Health Policy and Planning. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czw057

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 35

78%

Researcher 5

11%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

7%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 12

36%

Medicine and Dentistry 8

24%

Nursing and Health Professions 7

21%

Psychology 6

18%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free