- This topic has 13 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
Based on the four recommendations points, as a public health professional, one can participate actively in building consensus on corruption’s scope. If it does not exist yet in his organization, he can give advice to the organization he’s working at if they are open to ideas.
Second, in agreeing on the consensus, it might need to define the acceptable form of corruption because it enables dysfunctional system works, for example, bribing officials could allow to access medications for a patient with a rare disease needing affordable drugs which is available in another country, but is refused by the government due to political reasons. However, when it comes to the issues of the organization, it must be rejected. For example, a hospital has a long waitlist for a critical surgery, and paying a bride could move a patient up the list. In this case, their management team should review their operation whether it needs more technical efficiency, or hiring more high-performance surgeons to speed up the queue. As the paper suggests, it is important to concentrate on what matters most.
Third, as a public health professional, it is vital to contribute to the corruption issues in the research communities and share data on anonymized corrupt practices to build evidence for effective interventions and increase the visibility of corruption in the health research databases.
Fourth, the research should not be limited to the health sector because corruption is a systemic problem not a localized problem. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach is necessary to enable a holistic view of the problem.
I agree with these four recommendations, however, corruption could be either a social norm or unavoidable, especially where the rules of laws are not effective and the government itself is corrupt. In this case, the boundary of corruption should be defined. On the other hand, all these recommendations can only be exercised but limited within the organization.
In addition to these recommendations, there are some suggestions I would like to propose. First and foremost, each individual should be ethical himself first and be responsible for reporting corrupt practices if the doors are open. Secondly, but of equal importance, the government should strengthen anti-corruption and enforcement mechanisms because the government affects more or less every facet of public life. Finally, public health professionals should promote external audits from a small project to a large program to be implemented across all health organizations.
-
-
In my opinion, the four recommended actions proposed for public health professionals to tackle corruption are practical and provide good guidelines.
I agree with the idea of gathering key stakeholders in the health system to understand the scope and nature of corruption. This is an important step to raise awareness and build shared responsibility. Supporting and protecting individuals who dare to expose corruption is essential, so they can share information without fear. It is also important to ensure that their concerns are fairly considered and that they are properly protected.
I also agree with the recommendation to prioritize actions based on impact and feasibility. This helps allocate resources efficiently, focusing on the most harmful and solvable forms of corruption. However, I think we should not ignore corruption that is often seen as something minor and ongoing, such as using office hours for personal tasks or misusing workplace resources. These behaviors, though often seen as minor, can become normalized over time and lead to more significant corruption.
Regarding the third and fourth recommendation, addressing complex problems with a holistic approach, I agree that it is necessary. Although research on health sector corruption is often published in niche journals, laws, regulations, and codes of conduct already exist in many places. In terms of research, I have a slightly different view. I think fair and consistent enforcement of laws and regulations might already be sufficient, combined with collaborative multi-disciplinary efforts. However, having the idea to develop research plans and use technology tools, such as big data analysis and social network analysis, could help monitor, oversee, and prevent corruption effectively.
-
It’s interesting that I have never thought that spending office hours for personal tasks as corruption but abusing while spending office resources is indeed a corruption. Sometimes, employees may lookup information such as travel and tour, local news for personal interest, on the other hand, as per traditional company policy, everything we do on the company laptop belongs to the company, so it’s risky if we have personal photos and videos.
I agree that network analysis is useful in uncovering corruption. In banking sector, they use a graph database (a network of transaction from one person to another) to find out fraud. In health sector, I believe that if we check a network of transaction (if digital record), it will be easier to find out.
-
-
I’d like to share my views on the four recommended points for public health professionals to fight corruption. Here they are, along with my thoughts:
1. Consensus Building: Engage stakeholders to agree on the scale and nature of corruption.
I agree with this recommendation. Building consensus among stakeholders is crucial because it ensures that everyone has a shared understanding of the problem. This collective agreement can foster a collaborative environment where all parties are committed to addressing corruption. It also helps in identifying the most pressing issues and prioritizing actions.2. Prioritizing Actions: Focus on the most impactful and feasible actions to address corruption.
I agree with this approach as well. By prioritizing actions, public health professionals can allocate resources more effectively and tackle the most significant issues first. This can lead to quicker, more noticeable improvements, which can build momentum and support for further anti-corruption measures.3. Holistic Approach: Use a multidisciplinary perspective to understand and tackle corruption.
I strongly agree with this recommendation. Corruption is a complex issue that often involves multiple sectors and disciplines. A holistic approach that includes legal, economic, social, and health perspectives can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the problem and lead to more effective solutions.4. Call to Action: Encourage a broader conversation about corruption in the health sector, emphasizing the need for political will and further research to develop effective policies.
I agree with this point. Raising awareness and fostering open discussions about corruption can help break the taboo around the topic. It can also mobilize political will and resources to address the issue. Additionally, further research is essential to develop evidence-based policies and interventions.Additional Suggestions
1. Transparency and Accountability: Implementing transparent processes and accountability mechanisms can deter corrupt practices. Regular audits, public reporting of health expenditures, and whistleblower protections can be effective measures.
2. Capacity Building: Training and educating health professionals on ethical practices and the importance of integrity can help build a culture of honesty and accountability.
3. Community Engagement: Involving the community in monitoring and reporting corruption can empower citizens and increase pressure on health systems to maintain high standards of integrity.
4. Technology Utilization: Leveraging technology, such as digital health records and e-governance platforms, can reduce opportunities for corruption by minimizing human intervention and increasing traceability.Overall, fighting corruption in health systems requires a multifaceted approach that includes both top-down and bottom-up strategies. By combining these recommendations with additional measures, public health professionals can create a more transparent, accountable, and effective health system.
-
-
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.-
Thank you for your insightful discussion. It reminds me of the word “goodness,” which, like corruption, can vary in meaning depending on their values and individual perspectives. Defining corruption carefully to avoid misinterpretation is crucial and ensure appropriate action in each unique context., especially in complex contexts like health systems.
-
-
Let me share my point of view on the four recommendation points for public health professionals to fight corruption.
I agree on key stakeholders in addressing corruption within the health system, it is essential to identify and engage various parties that have an influence or interest in the health sector. Key stakeholders typically include government officials, health care providers, regulatory bodies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), patients, and civil society groups.
And also agree on building consensus among these stakeholders involves open dialogue, sharing information about the extent of corruption, understanding the motives behind it, and collaboratively developing strategies to mitigate its effects.
Third agreement on prioritizing action against corruption in the health system, stakeholders must first acknowledge the extent of the issue, as highlighted by surveys in the health systems as corrupt.
Finally, agree on a holistic view in addressing corruption within the health system, it is important to recognize that corruption is a multifaceted issue that requires an interdisciplinary approach. This involves examining the various dimensions of corruption, including governance, bribery, and systemic vulnerabilities.
To effectively fighting corruption in the health system, a multi-faceted approach is essential. Enhanced oversight and evaluation of health system professionals can lead to greater transparency, accountability, and efficiency within the system. -
-
I agree with the four recommended points.
1. Bring key stakeholders together : corruption is a widespread issue, and involving policymakers, healthcare workers, and the public ensures that everyone understands the problem and takes responsibility for change.
2. Prioritize actions : identify the problem and set Prioritize, target the problem that have impact, we must focus on the most harmful and solvable issues first.
3. Holistic view : Corruption is complex and linked to politics, economics, and society. Looking at the bigger picture helps create long-term solutions rather than just temporary fixes.
4. Research community: More studies are needed to understand corruption and find what actually works to stop it. Research can guide policies and provide evidence-based solutions.Additionally,I think having a strong system that makes corruption difficult or reduces its impact is crucial. If we have strict monitoring, transparent processes, and regular audits, corruption becomes harder to hide. A system that checks and controls corruption can prevent it before it happens, making healthcare services more fair and trustworthy.
public awareness also is key to fighting corruption. When people know their rights and demand transparency, it becomes harder for corruption to continue.
-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login here