Cited by 458Healthcare Systems and ReformsHealthcare Systems and PracticesHealthcare Quality and Management

Accountability and health systems: toward conceptual clarity and policy relevance

Brinkerhoff, D. W·2004·Health Policy and Planning

Abstract

Improved accountability is often called for as an element in improving health system performance. At first glance, the notion of better accountability seems straightforward, but it contains a high degree of complexity. If accountability is to be more than an empty buzzword, conceptual and analytical clarity is required. This article elaborates a definition of accountability in terms of answerability and sanctions, and distinguishes three types of accountability: financial, performance and political/democratic. An analytic framework for mapping accountability is proposed that identifies linkages among health sector actors and assesses capacity to demand and supply information and exercise oversight and sanctions. The article describes three accountability purposes: reducing abuse, assuring compliance with procedures and standards, and improving performance/learning. Using an accountability lens can: (1) help to generate a system-wide perspective on health sector reform, (2) identify connections among individual improvement interventions, and (3) reveal gaps requiring policy attention. These results can enhance system performance, improve service delivery and contribute to sound policymaking.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/heapol/czh052

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Throughout the procurement tendering process (pre-bidding, bidding, post-bidding), there are clear corruption risks, including different bidders having the same contact information, forged documents, colluding companies, and bribes and kickbacks to government officials.

    “Throughout the procurement tendering process, namely pre-bidding, bidding and post-bidding, there are a number of clear corruption risks. These are highlighted in Table 1. Some examples include ‘different’ bidders having the same contact information, forged documents, colluding companies, and bribes and kickbacks to government officials [25].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brinkerhoff, D. W.
Affiliations
RTI International (US)
Corresponding author
Brinkerhoff, D. W
Venue
Health Policy and Planning
Published
2004-11-01
Volume
19
Issue
6
Pages
371-379
ISSN
  • 0268-1080 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2237
OpenAlex
W2154074623
Cited by
458
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 7
FWCI
8.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Policy and Planning (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
United States Agency for International Development
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Healthcare Systems and Reforms
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Systems and Practices
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
accountability, health care system, answerability, sanctions, financial accountability, performance accountability, political accountability, democratic accountability, oversight, health care reform, health policy, service delivery, health system performance
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Developing Countries, Health Policy, Policy Making, Social Responsibility, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review