I agree with the points outlined regarding corruption and the four steps of action planning. However, “corruption” is a broad term that can be interpreted differently depending on the scenario and context. For example, an aids provider provide a stipend to a health worker in a conflict area to deliver malaria services in rural areas, similarly, if a new nutrition project offers a salary to another health worker working in the same facility where there are five health workers in total and they pool their salaries to distribute them equally. This might be viewed as fraud or corruption from the perspective of donors or auditors.
However, this pooling mechanism could be seen differently by local healthcare stakeholders as it helps maintain Human Resources for Health (HRH) and ensures emergency health care services are available in the community, this is a readiness of health system. This shows that the term “corruption” can vary based on the specific context.
Therefore, I believe we need to carefully define corruption in the appropriate context before making any decisions. From my perspective, it would be beneficial to conduct a study that provides scientific evidence on corruption within health systems according to local contexts as the first step in the action planning process. Qualitative study might work for this kind of exercise but dissemination of the result might be available only for relevant stakeholders especially in conflict setting.
Reply To: Topic Discussion 2 : Corruption in health system
Home › Forums › TMHG544 Challenging Issues In Health Informatics › Week 1 : Discussion › Topic Discussion 2 : Corruption in health system › Reply To: Topic Discussion 2 : Corruption in health system