Dataset Information

Governing the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator: towards greater participation, transparency, and accountability.

ABSTRACT: The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) is a multistakeholder initiative quickly constructed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic to respond to a catastrophic breakdown in global cooperation. ACT-A is now the largest international effort to achieve equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies, and its governance is a matter of broad public importance. We traced the evolution of ACT-A's governance through publicly available documents and analysed it against three principles embedded in the founding mission statement of ACT-A: participation, transparency, and accountability. We found three challenges to realising these principles. First, the roles of the various organisations in ACT-A decision making are unclear, obscuring who might be accountable to whom and for what. Second, the absence of a clearly defined decision making body; ACT-A instead has multiple centres of legally binding decision making and uneven arrangements for information transparency, inhibiting meaningful participation. Third, the nearly indiscernible role of governments in ACT-A, raising key questions about political legitimacy and channels for public accountability. With global public health and billions in public funding at stake, short-term improvements to governance arrangements can and should now be made. Efforts to strengthen pandemic preparedness for the future require attention to ethical, legitimate arrangements for governance.

SUBMITTER: Moon S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8797025 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAcademic medicine continues to struggle in its efforts to compensate scholarly productivity. Academic achievements receive less recognition compared to clinical work, evidenced by a lack of reduced clinical hours or financial incentive. Core departmental education responsibilities are often distributed inequitably across academic departments. An approach using an incentive program, which emphasizes transparency, equity, and consensus may help academic departments share core education responsibilities and reward scholarly activity.MethodsWe launched a two-stage approach to confront the inequitable distribution of educational responsibilities and to recognize the scholarly work among our faculty. In the first stage, baseline education expectations were implemented for all faculty members, which included accountability procedures tied to a financial incentive. The second stage involved the creation of an aAcademic rRelative vValue uUnit (ARVU) system which contained additional activities that were derived and weighted based on stakeholder consensus. The points earned in the ARVU system were applied towards additional financial incentive at academic year-end. We compared education contributions before and after implementation as well as total points earned in the ARVU system.ResultsIn the first year of implementing education expectations, 87% of faculty fulfilled requirements. Those with a heavier clinical load made up the majority of deficient faculty. Those who did not meet education expectations were notified and had their year-end incentive reduced to reflect this. Faculty conference attendance increased by 21% (P<.001) and the number of resident assessments completed increased by 30% (P<.001) compared to the previous year. To date, faculty across the department have logged a total of 1,240 academic activities in the database, which will be converted into financial bonus amounts at year-end.ConclusionWe have seen significant increases in faculty participation in educational activities and learner assessments as well as documentation of activities in the ARVU system. A similar system using different specialty-specific activities may be generalizable and employed at other institutions.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity-led governance can ensure that leaders are accountable to the populations they serve and strengthen health systems for maternal care. A key aspect of democratic accountability is electing respective governance bodies, in this case community boards, and holding public meetings to inform community members about actions taken on their behalf. After helping build and open 10 maternity waiting homes (MWHs) in rural Zambia as part of a randomized controlled trial, we assisted community governance committees to plan and execute annual meetings to present performance results and, where needed, to elect new board members.MethodsWe applied a principally qualitative design using observation and analysis of written documentation of public meetings to answer our research question: how do governance committees enact inward transparency and demonstrate accountability to their communities. The analysis measured participation and stakeholder representation at public meetings, the types and purposes of accountability sought by community members as evidenced by questions asked of the governance committee, and responsiveness of the governance committee to issues raised at public meetings.ResultsPublic meetings were attended by 6 out of 7 possible stakeholder groups, and reports were generally transparent. Stakeholders asked probing questions focused mainly on financial performance. Governance committee members were responsive to questions raised by participants, with 59% of answers rated as fully or mostly responsive (showing understanding of and answering the question). Six of the 10 sites held elections to re-elect or replace governance committee members. Only 2 sites reached the target set by local stakeholder committees of 50% female membership, down from 3 at formation. To further improve transparency and accountability, community governance committees need to engage in advance preparation of reports, and should consult with stakeholders on broader measures for performance assessment. Despite receiving training, community-level governance committees lacked understanding of the strategic purpose of open public meetings and elections, and how these relate to democratic accountability. They were therefore not motivated to engage in tactics to manage stakeholders effectively.ConclusionWhile open meetings and elections have potential to enhance good governance at the community level, continuous training and mentoring are needed to build capacity and enhance sustainability.

Project description:BackgroundMatching is one commonly utilized method in quasi-experimental designs involving individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD). This method ensures two or more groups (e.g., individuals with an NDD versus neurotypical individuals) are balanced on pre-existing covariates (e.g., IQ), enabling researchers to interpret performance on outcome measures as being attributed to group membership. While much attention has been paid to the statistical criteria of how to assess whether groups are well-matched, relatively little attention has been given to a crucial prior step: the selection of the individuals that are included in matched groups. The selection of individuals is often an undocumented process, which can invite unintentional, arbitrary, and biased decision-making. Limited documentation can result in findings that have limited reproducibility and replicability and thereby have poor potential for generalization to the broader population. Especially given the heterogeneity of individuals with NDDs, interpretation of research findings depends on minimizing bias at all stages of data collection and analysis.ResultsIn the spirit of open science, this tutorial demonstrates how a workflow can be used to provide a transparent, reproducible, and replicable process to select individuals for matched groups. Our workflow includes the following key steps: Assess data, Select covariates, Conduct matching, and Diagnose matching. Our sample dataset is from children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; n = 25) and typically developing children (n = 43) but can be adapted to comparisons of any two groups in quasi-experimental designs. We work through this method to conduct and document matching using propensity scores implemented with the R package MatchIt. Data and code are publicly available, and a template for this workflow is provided in the Additional file 1 as well as on a public repository.ConclusionsIt is important to provide clear documentation regarding the selection process to establish matched groups. This documentation ensures better transparency in participant selection and data analysis in NDD research. We hope the adoption of such a workflow will ultimately advance our ability to replicate findings and help improve the lives of individuals with NDDs.

Dataset Information

Governing the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator: towards greater participation, transparency, and accountability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets