Proposing the LEGS framework to complement the WHO building blocks for strengthening health systems: One needs a LEG to run an ethical, resilient system for implementing health rights

The aim of this paper is to present a new framework to design and run a responsive and resilient health system. It can be used by both private and public, profit and non-profit organizations in order to translate strategic goals of an organization into desirable and intended best practice, and results. This includes the health sector. The framework is based on the four pillars of leadership, ethics, governance and systems, hence called LEGS framework. It can complement the six World Health Organization building blocks that guide inputs to help a health system achieve the intended goals. Despite all the strengths of the World Health Organization building blocks for health systems strengthening, it is important to highlight a few challenges: Ethics is assumed but is not explicitly stated as part of any building block. Furthermore, the World Health Organization framework lacks the flexibility to accommodate other important factors which may differ in various settings and contexts. Hence, the World Health Organization building blocks are either difficult to apply or insufficient in certain contexts, especially in countries with rampant corruption, weak rule of law and systems. This paper explores areas to strengthen the existing framework so as to achieve the intended results efficiently in different contexts. The authors propose LEGS (Leadership, Ethics, Governance and Systems Framework). This framework is very flexible, simple to use, easy to remember, accommodates the existing six WHO building blocks and can better guide different health systems and actors to achieve intended goals by taking into consideration the contextual factors like deficits in moral capital, rule of law or socioeconomic determinants of health

Disseminating research results to research participants and their communities

No abstractMalawi Medical Journal Vol. 20 (2) 2008: pp. 64-6

Survival rights for children: What are the national and global barriers?

Most children die in low and middle-income countries as a result of structural injustice, and while it may not be possible to prove causality between economic policies and breaches of rights, it is possible to audit policy and practices through the lens of human rights. Child health advocates need to highlight the fact that technical interventions, in the absence of action on structural injustice, cannot address the fundamental causes of poor health. It could even be said that we collude in the fallacy that injustices can be solved with technical solutions. The determinants of health, water, food, shelter, primary education and health care are minimum core human rights, are the rights required for survival and today should be available to every child (and their families) in all countries. However, there are national and global limitations on the ability of countries to determine policy and generate the revenue required for core human rights. The authors conducted a review of the literature on the main leakages from government revenues in low and middle-income countries to identify obstacles to children enjoying their right to survival. Based on the review the authors suggest a framework for an upstream audit that can be carried out, country by country, to identify barriers in terms of policies and the generation, allocation and utilisation of revenues. This audit involves systematically screening the policies and practices of the main actors: national governments, high-income country partners, multinational enterprises, and international organisations, for possible influence on the realisation of human rights. Human rights advocates and child health associations could lead or commission an upstream audit on behalf of children in their countries in order to identify the fundamental causes and real remedies

Survival rights for children : what are the national and global barriers?

Most children die in low and middle-income countries as a result of structural injustice, and while it may not be possible to prove causality between economic policies and breaches of rights, it is possible to audit policy and practices through the lens of human rights. Child health advocates need to highlight the fact that technical interventions, in the absence of action on structural injustice, cannot address the fundamental causes of poor health. It could even be said that we collude in the fallacy that injustices can be solved with technical solutions. The determinants of health, water, food, shelter, primary education and health care are minimum core human rights, are the rights required for survival and today should be available to every child (and their families) in all countries. However, there are national and global limitations on the ability of countries to determine policy and generate the revenue required for core human rights. The authors conducted a review of the literature on the main leakages from government revenues in low and middle-income countries to identify obstacles to children enjoying their right to survival. Based on the review the authors suggest a framework for an upstream audit that can be carried out, country by country, to identify barriers in terms of policies and the generation, allocation and utilisation of revenues. This audit involves systematically screening the policies and practices of the main actors: national governments, high-income country partners, multinational enterprises, and international organisations, for possible influence on the realisation of human rights. Human rights advocates and child health associations could lead or commission an upstream audit on behalf of children in their countries in order to identify the fundamental causes and real remedies.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe