Volume 28, Issue 1 (5-2025)
jha 2025, 28(1): 56-75 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ashrafi E, Mosadeghrad A, Arab M. Analysis of administrative health policies in healthcare organizations. jha 2025; 28 (1) :56-75
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-4527-en.html
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-4527-en.html
1- Department of Health management, policy and economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Health management, policy and economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,arabmoha@tums.ac.ir
2- Department of Health management, policy and economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,
Abstract: (36 Views)
Introduction: Administrative corruption is defined as the abuse of delegated organizational authority for personal gain. In Iran, the Administrative Health Promotion Act were formulated to strengthen governance ligimacy, improve efficiency, achieve organizational goals, and increase public satisfaction. This study aims to analyze administrative health policies within Iranian healthcare organizations.
Methods: This qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews and document analysis. A total of 35 key informants involved in the formulation, implementation, or evaluation of administrative health policies were selected through purposive and snowball sampling and interviewed. Additionally, 13 relevant policy documents related to administrative health were identified and analyzed. The Mosaddeghrad Policy Analysis Model, consisting of four stages and ten steps, was applied. Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis approach.
Results: Despite the significance of administrative health at the national governance level, the unclear definition of corruption, structural deficiencies, insufficient financial resources, inadequate stakeholder involvement, weak network governance, frequent managerial changes, absence of detailed implementation plans, and resistance from some mid-level managers have hindered the effective implementation of administrative health promotion policies. Strengthening stakeholder engagement, ensuring sustainable resources, enhancing intersectoral coordination, increasing transparency and public invovement, and reinforcing political will are essential for improving administrative health and combating corruption.
Conclusion: Enhancing administrative health in healthcare organizations requires addressing key barriers and ensuring stakeholder engagement, coordination, and political will, alongside with clarity, transparency, and sustainable implementation to effectively combat corruption.
Methods: This qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews and document analysis. A total of 35 key informants involved in the formulation, implementation, or evaluation of administrative health policies were selected through purposive and snowball sampling and interviewed. Additionally, 13 relevant policy documents related to administrative health were identified and analyzed. The Mosaddeghrad Policy Analysis Model, consisting of four stages and ten steps, was applied. Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis approach.
Results: Despite the significance of administrative health at the national governance level, the unclear definition of corruption, structural deficiencies, insufficient financial resources, inadequate stakeholder involvement, weak network governance, frequent managerial changes, absence of detailed implementation plans, and resistance from some mid-level managers have hindered the effective implementation of administrative health promotion policies. Strengthening stakeholder engagement, ensuring sustainable resources, enhancing intersectoral coordination, increasing transparency and public invovement, and reinforcing political will are essential for improving administrative health and combating corruption.
Conclusion: Enhancing administrative health in healthcare organizations requires addressing key barriers and ensuring stakeholder engagement, coordination, and political will, alongside with clarity, transparency, and sustainable implementation to effectively combat corruption.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Health Services Management
Received: 2024/12/11 | Accepted: 2025/07/29 | Published: 2025/09/3
Received: 2024/12/11 | Accepted: 2025/07/29 | Published: 2025/09/3
References
1. Mosadeghrad AM. Rethinking health reforms in Iran. Tehran University Medical Journal. 2020;78:473-4 [In Persian]. Available from: http://tumj.tums.ac.ir/article-1-10750-en.html
2. World Health Organization. Everybody's business: strengthening health systems to improve health outcomes: WHO's framework for action [Internet]. Geneva (CH):WHO; 2007 [cited 2025 Aug 15].Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/everybody-s-business
3. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Zoido-Lobatón P. Aggregating governance indicators [Internet].Washington (DC): World Bank; 1999 [cited 2025 Aug 15]. Available from: https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/352561468739447838/aggregating-governance-indicators [DOI:10.2139/ssrn.188548]
4. Vian T. Review of corruption in the health sector: theory, methods and interventions. Health Policy and Planning. 2008;23(2):83-94. [DOI:10.1093/heapol/czm048]
5. Hutchinson E, Balabanova D, McKee M. We need to talk about corruption in health systems. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 2018;8(4):191. [DOI:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.123]
6. Mosadeghrad AM, Ferlie E. Total quality management in healthcare. In: Management innovations for healthcare organizations: adopt, abandon or adapt. New York (NY): Routledge; 2016. p. 378-96. [DOI:10.4324/9781315739786]
7. Neu D, Everett J, Rahaman AS. Preventing corruption within government procurement: constructing the disciplined and ethical subject. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 2015;28:49-61. [DOI:10.1016/j.cpa.2014.03.012]
8. Mosadeghrad AM. A practical model for health policy making and analysis. Payesh (Health Monitor) [Internet]. 2025;21(1):7-24 [In persian]. Available from: http://payeshjournal.ir/article-1-1801-en.htm [DOI:10.52547/payesh.21.1.7]
9. Islamic Republic of Iran. Law on Promoting Administrative Health and Combating Corruption [Internet]. Official Gazette of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2008; Issue No. 18686 [cited 2025 Aug 15]. Available from: https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/802617
10. Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index [Internet]. Berlin: Transparency International; c2025 [cited 2025 May 12]. Available from: https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/iran
11. Khayatzadeh-Mahani A, Ruckert A, Labonté R, Kenis P, Akbari-Javar MR. Health in all policies (HiAP) governance: lessons from network governance. Health Promotion International. 2019;34(4):779-91. [DOI:10.1093/heapro/day032]
12. Bowen GA. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal. 2009;9(2):27-40. [DOI:10.3316/QRJ0902027]
13. Dalglish SL, Khalid H, McMahon SA. Document analysis in health policy research: the READ approach. Health Policy and Planning. 2020;35(10):1424-31. [DOI:10.1093/heapol/czaa064]
14. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101. [DOI:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa]
15. Rhodes RA. Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1997. ISBN 0-335-19728-0.
16. Grindle MS. Good enough governance revisited. Development Policy Review. 2007;25(5):533-74. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2007.00385.x]
17. Quah JS, editor. Curbing corruption in Asian countries: An impossible dream? Bingley (UK): Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2011. [DOI:10.1108/S0732-1317(2011)0000020020]
18. Schalk J. Linking stakeholder involvement to policy performance: nonlinear effects in Dutch local government policy making. The American Review of Public Administration. 2015;47(4): 479-495. [DOI:10.1177/0275074015615435]
19. Quah JS. Combating corruption in six Asian countries: a comparative analysis. Asian Education and Development Studies. 2016;5(2):244-62. [DOI:10.1108/AEDS-01-2016-0011]
20. Kingdon JW, Stano E. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston (MA): Little, Brown; 1984. [DOI:10.1017/S0143814X00003068]
21. Daneshfard K. Investigating effective strategies in administrative integrity system. Strategic Management Research. 2017;24(68):65-87 [In Persian]. https://sid.ir/paper/513498/fa
22. Khoini G, Rahimi A. A practical review of the implementation of the Law on Promoting the Health of the Administrative system and Combating Corruption. Journal of Audit Science. 2019;16(62):5-24 [In Persian]. https://www.magiran.com/p1542116
23. Scott WR. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1995..
24. Stiglitz JE. The contributions of the economics of information to twentieth century economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2000;115(4):1441-78 [DOI:10.1162/003355300555015]
25. Hudson B, Hunter D, Peckham S. Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: can policy support programs help? Policy Design and Practice. 2019;2(1):1-4. [DOI:10.1080/25741292.2018.1540378]
26. Mosadeghrad AM, Ferdosi M, Afshar H, Hosseini-Nejhad SM. The impact of top management turnover on quality management implementation. Medical Archives. 2013;67(2):134-40. [DOI:10.5455/medarh.2013.67.134-140]
27. Rose-Ackerman S, Palifka BJ. Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2016. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139962933]
28. Hatry HP. Transforming performance measurement for the 21st century. Washington (DC): Urban Institute; 2014. [cited 2025 Aug 15]. Available from: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/transforming-performance-measurement-21st-century
29. North DC. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1990. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511808678]
30. Lipsky M. Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York (NY): Russell Sage Foundation; 2010 [cited 2025 Aug 15]. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/9781610447713
31. Howlett M, Ramesh M, Perl A. Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Toronto (CA): Oxford University Press; 1995. [cited 2025 Aug 15]. Available from: https://archive.org/details/studyingpublicpo0000howl
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Site Keywords
Health, Administration, Scientific Article, Iran University of Medical Sciences,
