Search

Background: Healthcare corruption poses a significant threat to individuals, institutions, sectors, and states. Combating corruption is paramount for protecting patients, maintaining the healthcare system's integrity, and preserving public trust. As corruption evolves, takes new forms, and adapts to changing socio-political landscapes, understanding its manifestations is critical to developing effective anti-corruption strategies at individual and institutional levels. Objective: The aim was to comprehensively collate the manifestations of different types of corruption in healthcare to illustrate prevailing patterns and trends and to provide policymakers, practitioners, and researchers with practical insights to inform research agendas, regulatory and governance strategies, and accountability measures. Method: We conducted a narrative review of scientific articles published between 2013 and 2022 using keyword searches in SCOPUS and EBSCO. We utilized the corruption typology proposed by the European Union and Thompson's Institutional Corruption Framework to systematically identify manifestations across different corruption types. The Prisma scheme was employed to document the selection process and ensure reproducibility. Findings: Bribery in medical service provision was the most frequently investigated form of corruption, revealing rather uniform manifestations. Misuse of high-level positions and networks and institutional corruption also received considerable attention, with a wide range of misconduct identified in institutional corruption. Extending the analysis to institutional corruption also deepened the understanding of misconduct in the context of improper marketing relations and highlighted the involvement of various stakeholders, including academia. The pandemic exacerbated the vulnerability of the healthcare sector to procurement corruption. Also, it fostered new types of misconduct related to the misuse of high-level positions and networks and fraud and embezzlement of medical drugs, devices, and services. Conclusions: The review spotlights criminal actions by individuals and networks and marks a notable shift towards systemic misconduct within specific types of corruption. The findings highlight the necessity of customized anti-corruption strategies throughout the healthcare sector. These insights are crucial for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers in guiding the formulation of legal frameworks at local and global levels, governance strategies, and research priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientometrics and research evaluation describe and analyze research publications when conducting publication, citation, and topic analyses. However, what exactly is a (scientific, academic, scholarly or research) publication? This article demonstrates that there are many problems when it comes to looking in detail at quantitative publication analyses, citation analyses, altmetric analyses, and topic analyses. When is a document a publication and when is it not? We discuss authorship and contribution, formally and informally published documents, as well as documents in between (preprints, research data) and the characteristics of references, citations, and topics. What is a research publication? Is there a commonly accepted criterion for distinguishing between research and non-research? How complete and unbiased are data sources for research publications and sources for altmetrics? What is one research publication? What is the unit of a publication that causes us to count it as "1" In this regard, we report problems related to multi-author publications and their counting, weighted document types, the unit and weighting of citations and references, the unit of topics, and counting problems--not only at the article and individual researcher level (micro-level), but also at the meso-level (e.g., institutions) and macro-level (e.g., countries). Our results suggest that scientometric counting units are not reliable and clear. Many scientometric and research evaluation studies must therefore be used with the utmost caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Transfer: Zeitschrift für Kommunikation & Markenmanagement is the property of Deutsche Werbewissenschaftliche Gesellschaft and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)