The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
‡ These authors are joint first authors on this work.
Accountability for ensuring sexual and reproductive health and rights is increasingly receiving global attention. Less attention has been paid to accountability mechanisms for sexual and reproductive health and rights at national and sub-national level, the focus of this systematic review.
We searched for peer-reviewed literature using accountability, sexual and reproductive health, human rights and accountability instrument search terms across three electronic databases, covering public health, social sciences and legal studies. The search yielded 1906 articles, 40 of which met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (articles on low and middle-income countries in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese published from 1994 and October 2016) defined by a peer reviewed protocol.
Studies were analyzed thematically and through frequencies where appropriate. They were drawn from 41 low- and middle-income countries, with just over half of the publications from the public health literature, 13 from legal studies and the remaining six from social science literature. Accountability was discussed in five health areas: maternal, neonatal and child health services, HIV services, gender-based violence, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender access and access to reproductive health care in general. We identified three main groupings of accountability strategies: performance, social and legal accountability.
The review identified an increasing trend in the publication of accountability initiatives in Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR). The review points towards a complex ‘accountability ecosystem’ with multiple actors with a range of roles, responsibilities and interactions across levels from the transnational to the local. These accountability strategies are not mutually exclusive, but they do change the terms of engagement between the actors involved. The publications provide little insight on the connections between these accountability strategies and on the contextual conditions for the successful implementation of the accountability interventions. Obtaining a more nuanced understanding of various underpinnings of a successful approach to accountability at national and sub national levels is essential.
Accountability has long been a key theme in international development and its related disciplines [
Recently, accountability in health has become a key priority at the highest levels of the United Nations system through its engagement with national governments. The Commission on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children’s Health (CoIA), founded in 2010 as a follow-up to the UN Secretary General’s initiative “Every Woman, Every Child”, recommended that all countries establish and strengthen accountability mechanisms that are transparent and inclusive of all stakeholders [
Despite increased attention to and demand for accountability in health from multiple and varied global stakeholders, understanding of accountability initiatives for sexual and reproductive health at national and sub-national levels remains limited. Given the multi-disciplinary contributions to understanding accountability, we undertook a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature across disciplinary boundaries. Considering this complexity, at an initial stage in our systematic review, we sought to map the range of accountability strategies and instruments used to address sexual and reproductive health and rights, the low and middle-income contexts in which they were implemented and the resulting documented outcomes.
In the paper, we use the terms “accountability strategy”, “accountability intervention”, “accountability instrument” and “accountability mechanisms”.
An “accountability strategy” is any overarching set of programmes and activities, conducted by governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), grassroots organizations, activist lawyers as well as communities with the intention to enforce or support accountability.
The term “accountability intervention” refers more narrowly to the operational level. Examples include setting up a village health committee, bringing a court case or carrying out a drama workshop to educate villagers on sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR). Interventions are usually delivered within projects or programmes with the objective of supporting accountability.
An “accountability instrument” is the use of particular implementation tools within the context of a given intervention. Examples include patient charter rights or digital health feedback applications.
An “accountability mechanism” is a theoretical explanation of why a strategy or intervention works. Explanatory theoretical mechanisms include collective action, community empowerment, transparency, and enforcement.
The review methodology was initially structured with a realist and multi-disciplinary intent to ask “what works in terms of accountability mechanisms in the field of sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR) at sub-national and national levels, how, why and in which context?”. The review is based on a protocol that was reviewed by an international expert technical committee. We were guided by a meta-interpretation approach [
To capture the accountability strategies across multiple disciplines, we used three search engines: PubMed (health literature), Web of Knowledge (social sciences) and LexisNexis Academic (law). The search terms included combinations of free-text words in TI and /or all fields, depending on the search strategies allowed by the database in question (
Accountability terms | Accountability / accountable (noun/adjective), (public) accountability, (community) accountability, (social) accountability, answerability, enforcement |
Sexual and Reproductive Health Terms | (Gender-based, sexual, domestic) violence, maternal mortality, maternal morbidity, sexually transmitted infection (STI), HIV, (unintended, unwanted, teenage) pregnancies, (unsafe) abortion, adolescent sexual and reproductive health, adolescent sexual and reproductive rights, obstetric care, respectful childbirth, referral, antenatal care, contraception, family planning, infertility, prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV (PMTCT), perinatal mortality, perinatal morbidity, fistula, abuse, female genital mutilation (FGM), child marriage |
Human rights-sexual and reproductive rights terms | Equality, equity, stigma, non-discrimination, accountability, privacy and confidentiality, informed decision-making, participation, availability, accessibility, acceptability, quality of care, sexual rights, reproductive rights, sexual and reproductive rights, sexual and reproductive health and rights, right to health, women's rights, lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT) rights, intersex rights, respect, disrespect |
Accountability Instruments- Terms | Parliamentary commissions, civil service ombudsman, professional associations, commission on administrative justice, right to information act, consumer forums, health committees, ombudsman services, health commissioners, citizen score cards, right to information, Constitution, annual health summit; public investigators; health sector review; health councils/hospital boards; professional associations (accreditation); health committees; patient/user groups; patients charter; audit bodies; budget committees; ombudsman |
Options to select languages other than English were limited in the three databases. In LexisNexis Academic, two categories of law reviews were available to cover different languages: (1) UK and European journals and (2) Brazilian, Asian law and French language journals and reviews. The UK/European law journals also include journals on legal traditions from LMIC, e.g. Journal of African Law and the Journal of Asian Law. No specific language or country selection options could be made in PubMed and Web of Science.
Each abstract was screened using the inclusion and exclusion criteria presented in
Criteria | Included | Excluded |
---|---|---|
1994—October 30, 2016 | Before 1994 | |
Low-and Middle-Income Countries as per Organisation for Economic Cooperation and development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) List of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) Recipients | All other countries | |
English, Spanish, French, Portuguese | All other languages | |
Empirical studies / primary data analysis: randomized control trials; quasi-experimental studies, before/after, longitudinal and qualitative studies (e.g. case studies, action research, grounded theory, ethnography) Articles in academic law journals, academic law reviews Systematic reviews (all types) Comments, critical reflections presenting empirical case-studies to illustrate |
Non-peer reviewed empirical studies NGO Meeting reports NGO programme reports NGO advocacy publications Conference proceedings Dissertations On-going research Protocols (NGO and other) Programme evaluations, or programme reports with an evaluative component Comments, expert opinion or reflections with an evaluative component Book reviews |
The abstracts that met the inclusion criteria (articles on low and middle income countries in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese published from 1994 onwards—the year of the first International Conference on Population and Development was organised publications on low and middle income countries) were then reviewed to assess if they (1) relate to any accountability strategy or mechanism, (2) relate to a SRHR area or (3) a national level judicial or reconciliation mechanism (such as court proceedings of international war tribunals). The latter included studies reviewing jurisprudence from supreme, constitutional or other national and provincial level courts. To verify fidelity to the inclusion criteria, a sample of 20 abstracts per database were checked for inclusion/exclusion by a second senior researcher. Two researchers discussed the papers for which they had a different opinion until a consensus was reached.
After the full text review, articles were further excluded based on the exclusion criteria (e.g. articles related to global and regional accountability mechanisms). We present the papers that were included in
The review question guided the data extraction. Categories included in the data extraction include: (1) author; (2) SRHR issue; (3) year of publication; (4) number of citations (Google Scholar); (5) year of intervention; (6) original language; (7) funding source; (8) study setting; (9) type of study; (10) accountability type according to the article or as deduced by the researcher; (11) accountability relationship (from whom to whom); (12) accountability strategy and implementation instrument; (13) level at which strategy is supposed to work; (14) purpose (why?); (15) lessons learned; (16) reported outcomes; (17) mechanisms; (18) equity effects; (19) description of the intervention or action; (20) scale of the intervention or action; (21) target population and finally (22) the actors involved in the accountability strategy.
Since this review covers several disciplines (public health, social sciences, legal studies) with different disciplinary standards for writing and quality appraisal, it is difficult to apply a single framework to assess quality across the cases. Legal reviews, for instance, apply a critical (post-positivist) paradigm and typically do not provide a methodology section. Other studies included do not neatly distinguish between reporting and interpreting results. To gauge quality across the papers, we applied the principles of data quality appraisal for qualitative research [
Narrative synthesis [
A total of 1,906 articles were found when the search terms were applied to the three databases. On application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1,631 abstracts were excluded. Further review of the 275 included abstracts led to sixty articles downloaded for a full-text review: 18 articles were retained from Web of Science, 20 articles from LexisNexis Academic, and 22 from PubMed. The articles came from public health, legal studies, political science, history, social psychology, anthropology, critical theory, ethics, health services management, clinical sciences, public administration, conflict studies, transitional and restorative justice studies, development and humanitarian studies. This underscores the need for an interdisciplinary approach to understand and examine the different aspects related to accountability in health. After the full text review, twenty out of sixty articles were further excluded resulting in the final selection of 40 articles documenting experiences related to accountability for SRHR at national and subnational level in low and middle-income countries between 1994–2016 (
Of the 41 low- and middle-income countries featured, eighteen articles reported on cases in sub-Saharan Africa, 10 in Latin America, nine in Asia, three in the Middle East/Maghreb and one in Europe. Several countries were represented in multiple articles: India (6 studies), South Africa (5 studies), Nigeria (3 articles) and Guatemala (2 studies). Seven studies were in humanitarian or post-conflict settings (Somaliland, Afghanistan, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guatemala and Peru). Nine articles reported on multi-country interventions or used examples from more than one country.
While the search period ran between 1994 and October 2016, the majority of articles were published between 2014 and 2015. A range of disciplines and study designs are included (
Research design | Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health (MNCH) | HIV | Gender-based violence | LGBT access | Reproductive health care in general | Row Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pattinson et al., 2009 [ |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
Asefa & Bekele, 2015 [ |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
Papp et al. 2013 [ |
McPherson et al. 2013 [ |
Bendana & Chopra 2013 [ |
0 | 0 | 9 | |
Freedman 2003 [ |
0 | Seelinger 2014 [ |
0 | 0 | 10 | |
Blake et al. 2016 [ |
0 | 0 | Penas Defago & Moran Faundes 2014 [ |
0 | 3 | |
Behague et al., 2008 [ |
0 | 0 | McCrudden 2015 [ |
0 | 2 | |
Kaur 2012 [ |
Durojaye & Balogun, 2010 [ |
0 | Khaitan 2015 [ |
Chirwa 2005 [ |
8 | |
0 | 0 | Crosby & Lykesy, 2011 [ |
0 | 0 | 1 | |
0 | 0 | 0 | Lind & Keating 2015 [ |
Rinker, 2015 [ |
2 | |
0 | 0 | Duggan et al. 2008 [ |
0 | 0 | 2 | |
20 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 40 |
In terms of study quality, we found that eighteen papers presented an audit trail, 15 had a sampling process described, and in 15 papers, triangulation, member checking or deviant case analysis was used to ascertain validity. Fourteen out of 40 studies (35%) obtained the highest score for explanatory power, only 6 (15%) obtained the highest score for insider comprehensiveness, 13 (32,5%) did so for the advancement of knowledge and 5 out of 40 studies (12.5%) for detail (i.e. making the study clear for outsiders) (see
We found that that five areas of SRHR were discussed: maternal, neonatal and child health services, HIV services, gender-based violence, LGBT access and access to reproductive health care in general (
Accountability strategy per SRHR area | Country | Scale | Beneficiaries | Article |
---|---|---|---|---|
National Guidelines on attention to women in labour and in delivery | Dominican Republic | National and sub-national | Pregnant women and women in labour in health facilities | Freedman 2003 [ |
Creation of national Nigeria Independent Accountability Mechanism | Nigeria | National | Not explicitly mentioned | Garba & Bandali 2014 [ |
Introduction policy on confidential inquiry | Nigeria | National | Not explicitly mentioned | Hussein & Okonufua 2012 [ |
Development civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) and Maternal Death Surveillance and Response (MDSR) systems and audits | Low and Middle Income | National and sub-national | Pregnant women and neonates | Mathai et al. 2015 [ |
Development of pregnancy surveillance and registry system | India and Bangladesh | Sub-national | Pregnant women | Labrique et al. 2012 [ |
Quality improvement through introduction local perinatal mortality audit tool | South Africa and Bangladesh | Sub-national (health facility level) | Neonates | Pattison et al. 2009 [ |
Examination of social and institutional conditions of hospital setting within context of near-miss intervention | Benin | Sub-national (health facility level) | Women who had obstetric emergencies | Behague et al. 2008 [ |
Assessment of satisfaction of care through a questionnaire based on 7 categories of disrespect and abuse | Ethiopia | Sub-national (health facility level) | Women who had given birth vaginally | Asefah & Bekele 2015 [ |
Exploration of existing social accountability practices related to maternal health | Democratic Republic of Congo | Sub-national (district) | Women | Mafuta et al 2015 [ |
Training providers in respectful maternity care | Burkina Faso | Sub-national | Pregnant women and women in labour in health facilities | Ouédraogo et al 2014 [ |
Quality improvement of facility-based maternal and child health care through direct observation of provider practices | Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Tanzania | Sub-national (health facility level) | Pregnant women, women in labour and children in health facilities | Rosen et al. 2015 [ |
Introduction of MNCH score cards and stakeholder meetings | Ghana | Sub-national (district and region) | Pregnant women, communities | Blake et al. 2016 [ |
Introduction of community-based scorecards, dashboards, confidential enquiry and maternal death audits | Ethiopia, Malawi, Tanzania, Nigeria and Sierra Leone | National and sub-national | Pregnant women, communities | Hulton et al. 2014 [ |
Introduction of community monitoring for maternal health by NGOs | India | Sub-national (decentralized state level) | Disenfranchised women | Papp et al. 2013 [ |
NGO led strategic litigation for violation of Economic and Social Rights (ESR), case of maternal death | India | Sub-national (decentralized state level) | Poor women from lower caste communities | Kaur 2012 [ |
Use of the Nigerian Constitution to protect against mandatory premarital HIV testing | Nigeria | National | HIV + people, HIV+ women in particular | Durojaye & Balogun 2010 [ |
Introduction of Accountability for Reasonableness model in district priority setting for PMTCT programme | Tanzania | Sub-national (district) | PMTCT programme users | Shayo et al. 2013 [ |
Assessment of fairness priority setting within regional HIV/AIDS control programme | Indonesia | Sub-national (regional) | Communities | Tromp et al. 2015 [ |
Description of accountability mechanisms within context of scale up of HIV services | Zambia | Sub-national (health facility level) | HIV services users | Topp et al. 2015 [ |
Description of planning within the context of scaling up male circumcision | Rwanda | National | Men | McPherson et al. 2014 [ |
Use of the Constitution to enforce protection against sexual violence | South Africa | National | Victims of sexual violence | Du Toit 2016 [ |
Implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (2006) | India | Sub-national (decentralized state level) | Children / girls | Ghosh 2011 [ |
Implementation of national reparation policy for victims of sexual violence | Post-conflict Guatemala and Peru | National | Indigenous, rural, poor women | Duggan et al. 2008 [ |
Implementation of UN Resolution 1325 through micro-initiatives by NGOs | Post-conflict LMIC (Afghanistan, Haiti, Israel/Palestine, Kosovo, Mongolia, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka | Sub-national | Women | Barrow 2009 [ |
Participatory action research on NGO truth telling exercise survivors sexual violence | Post-conflict Guatemala | Sub-national | Women survivors sexual violence | Crosby & Lykesy 2011 [ |
Description of accountability strategies for post-conflict sexual violence related to documentation, investigation and prosecution of sexual violence | Kenya, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Uganda | National and sub-nation (police and prosecution units) | Victims of sexual violence | Seelinger 2014 [ |
(Lack of) Supreme Court protection of ESR | India | National | Not explicitly mentioned | Khaitan 2015 [ |
Litigation by NGOs to hold government accountable for ESR violations of disenfranchised groups | India, Uganda, Belize | National and sub-national (national and local courts) | Disenfranchised groups | McCrudden 2015 [ |
Strategic litigation by activist lawyers to ensure LGBT rights | Chile, India | National | LGBT | Miles 2015 [ |
Strategic litigation by conservative NGOs to suspend implementation national abortion guidelines and LGBT rights | Argentina | Sub-national (provincial courts) | Not explicitly mentioned | Penas De Fago et al. 2014 [ |
Use of contradicting policies by policymakers to ensure support for their political agenda | Ecuador | National | Not Applicable | Lind & Keating 2015 [ |
Legal case using the Constitution to hold non-state actors accountable for ESR violations | South Africa | National | People living in South Africa | Nolan 2014 [ |
Legal case using Minimum Core Approach within Constitution to protect ESR rights of marginalized groups and provide them with minimum essential levels of services | Kenya, South Africa, Colombia | National | Disenfranchised groups | Orago 2015 [ |
Legal cases using of Section 26 and 27 of the South African Constitution to ensure access to RH care | South Africa | National | Poor, disenfranchised groups | Bendana & Chopra 2013 [ |
Legal case using Constitution for ESR protection | Malawi | National | Disenfranchised groups | Chirwa 2005 [ |
The implementation of the protection of ESR under the Somaliland Constitution and the implementation of the national gender policy | Somaliland | National | Disenfranchised women | Bendana & Chopra 2013 [ |
Exploration of personal accountability child bearing practices against religious background and state development discourse | Morocco | Individual | Not Applicable | Rinker 2015 [ |
Examination of the range of accountability strategies in service accountability for reproductive health | India, Brazil, Bolivia, Bangladesh | National and sub-national | Marginalised groups, communities | George 2003 [ |
Litigation on the failure of providing regulation for the determination of parenthood (surrogacy mothers) | China | National and sub-national | Surrogate mothers | Ding 2015 [ |
In the 40 studies reviewed, we identified three main groupings of accountability strategies: performance accountability, social or ‘community’ accountability and legal accountability. Performance accountability mainly refers to the internal systems that governments hold service providers and health systems to account (see for instance maternal death surveillance and response (MDSR), VRSC, surveillance, etc.), while social accountability is about citizens holding service providers to account. Articles on both of these types predominantly focused on improving the quality of maternal, neonatal and child health care, and increasing coverage and service utilization.
Fifteen of the publications deal with
The final thirteen articles related to
Furthermore, the studies related to legal accountability detailed how national policies and national legal systems increasingly play a role in delivering accountability [
Several of articles identified particular contextual conditions associated with successfully undertaking accountability for SRHR at national and sub-national level.
Reported context conditions | Studies |
---|---|
Societal awareness (e.g. no fear of stigma for victims of SRHR violations) | Seelinger, 2014 [ |
Active civil society and civic culture (advocating for the implementation of SRHR through strategic litigation, amongst other strategies) | Chirwa, 2005 [ |
Trust in the legal system and the institutions | Bendana & Chopra, 2013 [ |
Democratic space (civil society action is possible) | Miles, 2015 [ |
Recognition of the rule of law, reduced impunity (freedom from reprisal when victims report violations) | Bendana & Chopra, 2013 [ |
Independent judiciary knowledgeable about human rights and SRHR | Khaitan, 2015 [ |
Adapted legal and policy framework | Scott & Danel, 2016 [ |
Community participation in the health system | Scott & Danel, 2016 [ |
Adequately resourced health system (timely budget allocation, adequate human resources) | Scott & Danel, 2016 [ |
Motivated health providers and no blame culture in health facilities | Scott & Danel, 2016 [ |
Robust Health Management and Information System | Mathai et al., 2015 [ |
Sound management of the local health system and the health facility, leadership | Freedman, 2003 [ |
The studies reviewed reported several types of outcomes (See S6 Table). Not surprisingly, few studies were able to document health outcomes due to their study designs. Authors more frequently focused on intermediary outcomes, such as community or health care user empowerment, provider behaviour, broader health systems or changes in legislation, policy or guidelines changes.
Hussein and Okonufua [
Topp et al. [
Three studies reported unintended effects. Topp et al. [
We also assessed whether the studies reported any outcomes related to increased equity. Few studies reported evidence on the equity effects of accountability strategies, though several commented on their potential to influence equity positively. For example, accountability strategies involving civil society organization’s use of strategic litigation and constitutional accountability point to their potential to enforce access for disenfranchised groups [
Our review confirms the rising importance of accountability initiatives in SRHR as signalled by the increase in publications in 2014 and 2015. While the bulk of the articles are drawn from public health, a significant number of articles reflect legal perspectives, as well as contributions from other social science disciplines. The public health studies were largely qualitative case studies, with very few ethnographic, action research or critical studies contributions. The quality of the studies was hard to assess given the diverse disciplinary background of the articles.
The review classed the accountability articles into three main strategies: performance, social and legal accountability. While the majority of articles on performance and social accountability strategies focused on improving service delivery for maternal, neonatal and child health, legal and policy activism aimed at addressing accountability for HIV, GBV and LGBT concerns.
The review confirms the emerging analytic paradigm that treats accountability interventions as situated within complex accountability ecosystems comprised of multiple actors and institutions with a range of roles, responsibilities, interactions, and incentives. These ecosystems operate at multiple levels, from the transnational to the local.
These accountability strategies change the terms of engagement among the actors involved. Our review highlights that accountability is not a ‘one size fits all’ formulation where a set of prescribed tools can be transferred from one setting to another with an expectation of achieving similar outcomes. Rather, the success of accountability strategies is influenced by context-specific factors including power relations, socio-cultural dynamics, and the ability of community to negotiate accountability. Thus, our review’s finding align with analyses of accountability strategies and interventions beyond SRHR [
The recommendations made by the Commission on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children’s Health in 2011 [
In terms of impacts on health, the bulk of articles focused on MNCH, though several articles documented accountability experiences related to HIV, gender-based violence, LGBT or reproductive health. No published articles were found related to safe abortion, reproductive cancers or family planning, despite the active social movements and the role of litigation supporting policy and programming in those areas.
In terms of specific populations, articles did reflect the experience of reproductive age women, HIV affected populations and LGBT communities. While several articles reported accountability measures for marginalized communities, the specific experiences of adolescents and sex workers were not captured by the studies reviewed. While several articles listed marginalized communities as their main concern, authors tended not to address the equity effects of the accountability strategies being assessed. No publications examined how the accountability strategies addressed structural inequalities and benefits distribution across populations.
Finally, we note certain gaps in the published literature with regards to other types of accountability strategies beyond those in the three categories our review examined. The studies reviewed paid little attention to parliaments, a traditional institution for public accountability in democratic governance models; to national human rights bodies; or to the effects of elections or protest actions. We did not find studies discussing parliamentary committee works such as budget committees, nor parliamentary hearings on sexual and reproductive health and rights. Also absent were references to ombudsman and whistle-blower strategies and administrative sanctioning procedures as accountability instruments. Financial accountability, and related tools such as participatory budgeting, are also missing in the published literature for sexual and reproductive health and rights.
One of the strengths of this review is that it gathered articles from diverse disciplines. This has broadened our understanding of accountability ecosystems in SRHR, and particularly of how they change the terms of engagement between the actors involved. A second strength is that the review covered not only specific interventions but also approaches such as civil society action and litigation.
Arguably, this review only represents a sliver of what is happening on the ground as it was limited to the peer-reviewed literature. It therefore necessarily reflects the academic evidence base on accountability in health or other sectors. Much of the evidence related to civil society action in sexual and reproductive health and rights has not been published in peer-review journals. A wider review of accountability in the grey literature would be necessary to address the noted evidence gaps. Nevertheless, limitations will likely remain as documentation of actions by practitioners such as activist civil society organisations is often neither their priority especially given the resource constraints they often face.
Another limitation is related to language: only LexisNexis Academic allowed for selection other languages than English. Finally, there may be some bias in the selection of studies retained in the review, as only 3 sets of 20 abstracts, drawn from the papers selected by each database were checked for adherence to the inclusion/exclusion by a second researcher. We acknowledge this constituted a small sample.
As we note above, our review highlighted the importance of viewing accountability as located within accountability ecosystems. However, the current state of research provides little insight on how SRHR accountability strategies work as part of an accountability ecosystem and under which conditions. This gap is not specific to studies of SRHR, but is a challenge to research on accountability across sectors. We welcome the increased focus on accountability across different dimensions of health, particularly in relation to sexual and reproductive health and rights. However, policymakers and practitioners are often under pressure to identify what appear to be simple solutions, which run the risk of reducing accountability interventions to tokenism or quick fixes. A more nuanced understanding of contextual factors and their impacts on different strategies and processes and the capability of individuals and communities to negotiate accountability lies at the heart of ensuring that accountability efforts affirm sexual and reproductive health and rights.
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOCX)
(DOC)
We much appreciate and therefore wish to acknowledge the inputs and contributions of the following members of our expert advisory panel: Lynn Freedman, Martha Schaaf, Walter Flores, and Susannah Mayhew. We also appreciate the review of early drafts of this paper by Karen Hardee and Ian Askew. Finally, we would like to thank Joanna Baker for her contribution to copy-editing the final manuscript.