Multi-sectoral governance for health: a scoping review and typology development

Clicks: 29
ID: 327905
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #48 of 75 articles by views in Health policy and planning

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Multi-sectoral governance is widely recognised as necessary to address health challenges, but approaches vary in different settings. We aimed to examine the representation and attributes of multi-sectoral governance for health in the peer-reviewed literature and develop a descriptive typology. We conducted a scoping literature review, using Arksey & O'Malley's method that included 34 articles for analysis. Most were published in 2020-25 (77%), used qualitative methods (68%), and addressed wide ranging health issues across all geographic regions. Multi-sectoral governance for health was assessed to be either single-lead (i.e. when one sector leads) or distributed (i.e. when all sectors share in governance). Single-lead multi-sectoral governance for health was further classified as: (1) deliberate, when the lead sector is clearly tasked with governing collaboration from the outset; or (2) organic, when the lead sector emerges as the sector naturally responsible for governing collaboration. Distributed multi-sectoral governance for health can be further classified as: (1) committed, when all sectors have sustained interest in contributing to collaboration; (2) flexible, when the involvement of sectors shifts depending on changing priorities and available resources; or (3) fragile, when sectors do not commit sufficiently, resulting in sub-optimal collaboration. Our findings can advance thinking on what multi-sectoral governance for health looks like, guide policymakers and other stakeholders to explicitly consider governance arrangements when planning and implementing multi-sectoral governance for health and recommend future research to explore how variations in types of multi-sectoral governance for health relate to its effectiveness.
Reference Key
openalex_W7211919962 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Matthew Aviso, Harvy Joy Liwanag, Amanda Low, Ali Alshalah, Emma Louise Willoughby, Jasmine Sayed, Natasha Howard
Journal Health policy and planning
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/heapol/czag106
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czag106
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.