Social Accountability Reporting for Research (SAR4Research): checklist to strengthen reporting on studies on social accountability in the literature.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of evaluations of social accountability (SA) interventions have been published in the past decade, however, reporting gaps make it difficult to summarize findings. We developed the Social Accountability Reporting for Research (SAR4Research) checklist to support researchers to improve the documentation of SA processes, context, study designs, and outcomes in the peer reviewed literature and to enhance application of findings. METHODS: We used a multi-step process, starting with an umbrella review of reviews on SA to identify reporting gaps. Next, we reviewed existing guidelines for reporting on behavioral interventions to determine whether one could be used in its current or adapted form. We received feedback from practitioners and researchers and tested the checklist through three worked examples using outcome papers from three SA projects. RESULTS: Our umbrella review of SA studies identified reporting gaps in all areas, including gaps in reporting on the context, intervention components, and study methods. Because no existing guidelines called for details on context and the complex processes in SA interventions, we used CONSORT-SPI as the basis for the SAR4Research checklist, and adapted it using other existing checklists to fill gaps. Feedback from practitioners, researchers and the worked examples suggested the need to eliminate redundancies, add explanations for items, and clarify reporting for quantitative and qualitative study components. CONCLUSIONS: Results of SA evaluations in the peer-reviewed literature will be more useful, facilitating learning and application of findings, when study designs, interventions and their context are described fully in one or a set of papers. This checklist will help authors report better in peer-reviewed journal articles. With sufficient information, readers will better understand whether the results can inform accountability strategies in their own contexts. As a field, we will be better able to identify emerging findings and gaps in our understanding of SA.

Can transparency and accountability programs improve health? Experimental evidence from Indonesia and Tanzania.

We assess the impact of a transparency and accountability program designed to improve maternal and newborn health (MNH) outcomes in Indonesia and Tanzania. Co-designed with local partner organizations to be community-led and non-prescriptive, the program sought to encourage community participation to address local barriers in access to high quality care for pregnant women and infants. We evaluate the impact of this program through randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 100 treatment and 100 control communities in each country. We find that on average, this program did not have a statistically significant impact on the use or content of maternal and newborn health services, nor on perceptions of civic efficacy or civic participation among recent mothers in the communities where it was offered. These findings hold in both countries and in a set of prespecified subgroups. To identify reasons for the lack of impacts, we use a mixed-method approach combining interviews, observations, surveys, focus groups, and ethnographic studies that together provide an in-depth assessment of the complex causal paths linking participation in the program to improvements in MNH outcomes. Although participation in program meetings was substantial and sustained in most communities, and most attempted at least some of what they had planned, only a minority achieved tangible improvements, and fewer still saw more than one such success. In our assessment, the main explanation for the lack of impact is that few communities were able to traverse the complex causal paths from planning actions to accomplishing tangible improvements in their access to quality health care.