Promoting transparency, accountability, and access through a multi-stakeholder initiative: Lessons from the medicines transparency alliance

Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Vian, Taryn ^a   Kohler, Jillian C ^b   Forte, Gilles ^c   Dimancesco, Deirdre ^c  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Access to medicines; Accountability; Governance; MeTA; Multi stakeholder initiative; Pharmaceuticals; Transparency

Indexed keywords

CASE STUDY; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MANAGEMENT; PRIVATE SECTOR; VOICE;

EID: 85019984080     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20523211     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s40545-017-0106-x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. World Health Organization. WHO essential medicines and health products annual report 2015. WHO/EMP/2016.2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
2. Wagner AK, Graves AJ, Reiss SK, Lecates R, Zhang F, Ross-Degnan D. Access to care and medicines, burden of health care expenditures, and risk protection: results from the world health survey. Health Policy. 2011;100(2-3):151-8.
3. United Nations. The millennium development goals report 2015. New York: United Nations; 2015.
4. Bigdeli M, Jacobs B, Tomson G, Laing R, Ghaffar A, Dujardin B, Van Damme W. Access to medicines from a health system perspective. Health Policy Plan. 2013;28(7):692-704.
5. Kohler J. Mapping of good practices of anti-corruption interventions in the health sector. New York: UNDP Democratic Governance Group; 2011.
6. Bassat Q, Tanner M, Guerin PJ, Stricker K, Hamed K. Combating poor-quality anti-malarial medicines: a call to action. Malar J. 2016;15:302.
7. Vian T. Exploring the construction of transparency: an analysis of health managers' narratives. Global Health Gov. 2012;V(2):1-24
8. Brinkerhoff DW. Accountability and health systems: toward conceptual clarity and policy relevance. Health Policy Plan. 2004;19(6):371-79.
9. Brandsma G, Schillemans T. The accountability cube: measuring accountability. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2013;23(4):953-75.
10. Transparency and Accountability. http://www.medicinestransparency.org/key-issues/transparency-and-accountability/. Accessed Apr 3 2017.
11. Rose-Ackerman S, Tan Y. Corruption in the procurement of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment in China: the incentives facing multinationals, domestic firms and hospital officials. Pacific Basin Law J. 2015;32(1):1-53.
12. United Nations MDG Gap Task Force. Taking stock of the global partnership for development. Millennium development goal 8. MDG Gap task force report 2015. New York: United Nations; 2015.
13. Brockmyer B, Fox J. Assessing the evidence: the effectiveness and impact of public governance-oriented multi-stakeholder initiatives. Transparency & accountability initiative. London: Open Society Foundation; 2015.
14. Dentoni D, Bitzer V. The role(s) of universities in dealing with global wicked problems through multi-stakeholder initiatives. J Clean Prod. 2015;106:68-78.
15. Mena S, Palazzo G. Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Bus Ethics Q. 2012;22(3):527-56.
16. Kohler JC, Ovtcharenko N. Good Governance for Medicines Initiatives: Exploring Lessons Learned. U4 Issue No. 3. Bergen, Norway. 2013.
17. Buckland-Merrett GL, Kilkenny C, Reed T. Civil society engagement in multi-stakeholder dialogue: a qualitative study exploring the opinions and perceptions of MeTA members. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2017;10:5.
18. Vian T, Kohler JC. Medicines transparency alliance (MeTA): pathways to transparency, accountability and access. Cross-case analysis and review of phase II. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
19. Medicines Transparency Alliance. Medicines transparency alliance: a review of the pilot. London: UK Department for International Development; 2010.
20. Martin J, Schurmann M. The medicines transparency alliance: programmatic review of MeTA phase II. Final report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
21. Scott C. Figuring out accountability: selected uses of official statistics by civil society to improve public sector performance. Q squared working paper No. 37. Toronto: Centre for International Studies of the University of Toronto; 2007.
22. Piotrowski S. Transparency and secrecy: a reader linking literature to contemporary debate. Lanham: Lexington Books; 2010.
23. Cassell C, Symon G. Qualitative methods in organizational research: a practical guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.
24. Hartley JF. Case studies in organizational research. In: Cassell C, Symon G, editors. Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.
25. Patton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002.
26. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1994.
27. e-Pact Consortium. Medicines transparency alliance (MeTA) evaluation: testing MeTA's underlying intervention logic. Oxford: e-Pact Consortium; 2015.
28. Data Disclosure Survey. http://www.medicinestransparency.org/?id=588. Accessed Apr 3 2017.
29. Disclosure status of pharmaceutical sector data: Part of Component 1 of the MeTA baseline assessments. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js18077en/. Accessed Apr 3 2017.
30. Cucciniello M, Porumbescu GA, Grimmelikhuijsen S. 25 years of transparency research: evidence and future directions. Public Adm Rev. 2016;77(1):32-44.
31. Camargo CB. Using power and influence analysis to address corruption risks: The case of the Ugandan drug supply chain. U4 Brief 6. Bergen, Norway. 2012