Dataset Information

How to assess and prepare health systems in low- and middle-income countries for integration of services-a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Despite growing support for integration of frontline services, a lack of information about the pre-conditions necessary to integrate such services hampers the ability of policy makers and implementers to assess how feasible or worthwhile integration may be, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We adopted a modified systematic review with aspects of realist review, including quantitative and qualitative studies that incorporated assessment of health system preparedness for and capacity to implement integrated services. We searched Medline via Ovid, Web of Science and the Cochrane library using terms adapted from Dudley and Garner's systematic review on integration in LMICs. From an initial list of 10 550 articles, 206 were selected for full-text review by two reviewers who independently reviewed articles and inductively extracted and synthesized themes related to health system preparedness. We identified five 'context' related categories and four health system 'capability' themes. The contextual enabling and constraining factors for frontline service integration were: (1) the organizational framework of frontline services, (2) health care worker preparedness, (3) community and client preparedness, (4) upstream logistics and (5) policy and governance issues. The intersecting health system capabilities identified were the need for: (1) sufficiently functional frontline health services, (2) sufficiently trained and motivated health care workers, (3) availability of technical tools and equipment suitable to facilitate integrated frontline services and (4) appropriately devolved authority and decision-making processes to enable frontline managers and staff to adapt integration to local circumstances. Moving beyond claims that integration is defined differently by different programs and thus unsuitable for comparison, this review demonstrates that synthesis is possible. It presents a common set of contextual factors and health system capabilities necessary for successful service integration which may be considered indicators of preparedness and could form the basis for an 'integration preparedness tool'.

SUBMITTER: Topp SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5886169 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How to assess and prepare health systems in low- and middle-income countries for integration of services-a systematic review.

Topp Stephanie M SM Abimbola Seye S Joshi Rohina R Negin Joel J

Health policy and planning 20180301 2

Despite growing support for integration of frontline services, a lack of information about the pre-conditions necessary to integrate such services hampers the ability of policy makers and implementers to assess how feasible or worthwhile integration may be, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We adopted a modified systematic review with aspects of realist review, including quantitative and qualitative studies that incorporated assessment of health system preparedness for and ...[more]

PMID: 29272396

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCost is a major barrier to maternal health service utilisation for many women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, comparable evidence of the available cost data in these countries is limited. We conducted a systematic review and comparative analysis of costs of utilising maternal health services in these settings.MethodsWe searched peer-reviewed and grey literature databases for articles reporting cost of utilising maternal health services in LMICs published post-2000. All retrieved records were screened and articles meeting the inclusion criteria selected. Quality assessment was performed using the relevant cost-specific criteria of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. To guarantee comparability, disaggregated costs data were inflated to 2019 US dollar equivalents. Total adjusted costs and cost drivers associated with utilising each service were systematically compared. Where heterogeneity in methods or non-disaggregated costs was observed, narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings.ResultsThirty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. Many of the studies costed multiple services. However, the most frequently costed services were utilisation of normal vaginal delivery (22 studies), caesarean delivery (13), and antenatal care (ANC) (10). The least costed services were post-natal care (PNC) and post-abortion care (PAC) (5 each). Studies used varied methods for data collection and analysis and their quality ranged from low to high with most assessed as average or high. Generally, across all included studies, cost of utilisation progressively increased from ANC and PNC to delivery and PAC, and from public to private providers. Medicines and diagnostics were main cost drivers for ANC and PNC while cost drivers were variable for delivery. Women experienced financial burden of utilising maternal health services and also had to pay some unofficial costs to access care, even where formal exemptions existed.ConclusionConsensus regarding approach for costing maternal health services will help to improve their relevance for supporting policy-making towards achieving universal health coverage. If indeed the post-2015 mission of the global community is to "leave no one behind," then we need to ensure that women and their families are not facing unnecessary and unaffordable costs that could potentially tip them into poverty.

Project description:IntroductionThere is substantial evidence that maternal health services across the continuum of care are effective in reducing morbidities and mortalities associated with pregnancy and childbirth. There is also consensus regarding the need to invest in the delivery of these services towards the global goal of achieving Universal Health Coverage in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). However, there is limited evidence on the costs of providing these services. This protocol describes the methods and analytical framework to be used in conducting a systematic review of costs of providing maternal health services in LMICs.MethodsAfrican Journal Online, CINAHL Plus, EconLit, Embase, Global Health Archive, Popline, PubMed and Scopus as well as grey literature databases will be searched for relevant articles which report primary cost data for maternal health service in LMICs published from January 2000 to June 2019. This search will be conducted without implementing any language restrictions. Two reviewers will independently search, screen and select articles that meet the inclusion criteria, with disagreements resolved by discussions with a third reviewer. Quality assessment of included articles will be conducted based on cost-focused criteria included in globally recommended checklists for economic evaluations. For comparability, where feasible, cost will be converted to international dollar equivalents using purchasing power parity conversion factors. Costs associated with providing each maternal health services will be systematically compared, using a subgroup analysis. Sensitivity analysis will also be conducted. Where heterogeneity is observed, a narrative synthesis will be used. Population contextual and intervention design characteristics that help achieve cost savings and improve efficiency of maternal health service provision in LMICs will be identified.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review. The plan for dissemination is to publish review findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present findings at high-level conferences that engage the most pertinent stakeholders.Prospero registration numberCRD42018114124.

Project description:ObjectivesLow-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) bear a disproportionate burden of cervical cancer mortality. We aimed to identify what is currently known about barriers to cervical cancer screening among women in LMICs and propose remedial actions.DesignThis was a systematic review using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms in Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. We also contacted medical associations and universities for grey literature and checked reference lists of eligible articles for relevant literature published in English between 2010 and 2020. We summarized the findings using a descriptive narrative based on themes identified as levels of the social ecological model.SettingWe included studies conducted in LMICs published in English between 2010 and 2020.ParticipantsWe included studies that reported on barriers to cervical cancer screening among women 15 years and older, eligible for cervical cancer screening.ResultsSeventy-nine articles met the inclusion criteria. We identified individual, cultural/traditional and religious, societal, health system, and structural barriers to screening. Lack of knowledge and awareness of cervical cancer in general and of screening were the most frequent individual level barriers. Cultural/traditional and religious barriers included prohibition of screening and unsupportive partners and families, while social barriers were largely driven by community misconceptions. Health system barriers included policy and programmatic factors, and structural barriers were related to geography, education and cost. Underlying reasons for these barriers included limited information about cervical cancer and screening as a preventive strategy, poorly resourced health systems that lacked policies or implemented them poorly, generalised limited access to health services, and gender norms that deprioritize the health needs of women.ConclusionA wide range of barriers to screening were identified across most LMICs. Urgent implementation of clear policies supported by health system capacity for implementation, community wide advocacy and information dissemination, strengthening of policies that support women's health and gender equality, and targeted further research are needed to effectively address the inequitable burden of cervical cancer in LMICs.

Project description:BackgroundPrognostic models-used in critical care medicine for mortality predictions, for benchmarking and for illness stratification in clinical trials-have been validated predominantly in high-income countries. These results may not be reproducible in low or middle-income countries (LMICs), not only because of different case-mix characteristics but also because of missing predictor variables. The study objective was to systematically review literature on the use of critical care prognostic models in LMICs and assess their ability to discriminate between survivors and non-survivors at hospital discharge of those admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), their calibration, their accuracy, and the manner in which missing values were handled.MethodsThe PubMed database was searched in March 2017 to identify research articles reporting the use and performance of prognostic models in the evaluation of mortality in ICUs in LMICs. Studies carried out in ICUs in high-income countries or paediatric ICUs and studies that evaluated disease-specific scoring systems, were limited to a specific disease or single prognostic factor, were published only as abstracts, editorials, letters and systematic and narrative reviews or were not in English were excluded.ResultsOf the 2233 studies retrieved, 473 were searched and 50 articles reporting 119 models were included. Five articles described the development and evaluation of new models, whereas 114 articles externally validated Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score and Mortality Probability Models or versions thereof. Missing values were only described in 34% of studies; exclusion and or imputation by normal values were used. Discrimination, calibration and accuracy were reported in 94.0%, 72.4% and 25% respectively. Good discrimination and calibration were reported in 88.9% and 58.3% respectively. However, only 10 evaluations that reported excellent discrimination also reported good calibration. Generalisability of the findings was limited by variability of inclusion and exclusion criteria, unavailability of post-ICU outcomes and missing value handling.ConclusionsRobust interpretations regarding the applicability of prognostic models are currently hampered by poor adherence to reporting guidelines, especially when reporting missing value handling. Performance of mortality risk prediction models in LMIC ICUs is at best moderate, especially with limitations in calibration. This necessitates continued efforts to develop and validate LMIC models with readily available prognostic variables, perhaps aided by medical registries.

Project description:BackgroundEach year, 287,000 women die from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth, and 3.8 million newborns die before reaching 28 days of life. The near totality (99%) of maternal and neonatal deaths occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Utilization of essential obstetric care services including postnatal care (PNC) largely contributes to the reduction of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. There is a strong need to evaluate the evidence on the unmet needs in utilization of PNC services to inform health policy planning. Our objective is to assess systematically the socioeconomic, geographic and demographic inequalities in the use of PNC interventions in low- and middle-income countries.Methods/designThe current protocol adopts a strategy informed by the guidelines of The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Our systematic review will identify studies in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Chinese - provided inclusion of an English abstract - from 1960 onwards, by searching MEDLINE (PubMed interface), EMBASE (OVID interface), Cochrane Central (OVID interface) and the gray literature. Study selection criteria include research setting, study design, reported outcomes and determinants of interest. Our primary outcome is the utilization of PNC services, and determinants of concern are: 1) socioeconomic status (for example, income, education); 2) geographic determinants (for example, distance to a health center, rural versus urban residence); and 3) demographic determinants (for example, ethnicity, immigration status). Screening, data abstraction, and scientific quality assessment will be conducted independently by two reviewers using standardized forms. Where feasible, study results will be combined through meta-analyses to obtain a pooled measure of association between utilization of PNC services and key determinants. Results will be stratified by countries' income levels (World Bank classification).DiscussionOur review will inform policy-making with the aim of decreasing inequalities in utilization of PNC services. This research will provide evidence on unmet needs for PNC services in LMICs, knowledge gaps and recommendations to health policy planners. Our research will help promote universal coverage of quality PNC services as an integral part of the continuum of maternal and child health care. This protocol was registered with the Prospero database (registration number: CRD42013004661).

Project description:IntroductionPrivate sector healthcare delivery in low- and middle-income countries is sometimes argued to be more efficient, accountable, and sustainable than public sector delivery. Conversely, the public sector is often regarded as providing more equitable and evidence-based care. We performed a systematic review of research studies investigating the performance of private and public sector delivery in low- and middle-income countries.Methods and findingsPeer-reviewed studies including case studies, meta-analyses, reviews, and case-control analyses, as well as reports published by non-governmental organizations and international agencies, were systematically collected through large database searches, filtered through methodological inclusion criteria, and organized into six World Health Organization health system themes: accessibility and responsiveness; quality; outcomes; accountability, transparency, and regulation; fairness and equity; and efficiency. Of 1,178 potentially relevant unique citations, data were obtained from 102 articles describing studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Comparative cohort and cross-sectional studies suggested that providers in the private sector more frequently violated medical standards of practice and had poorer patient outcomes, but had greater reported timeliness and hospitality to patients. Reported efficiency tended to be lower in the private than in the public sector, resulting in part from perverse incentives for unnecessary testing and treatment. Public sector services experienced more limited availability of equipment, medications, and trained healthcare workers. When the definition of "private sector" included unlicensed and uncertified providers such as drug shop owners, most patients appeared to access care in the private sector; however, when unlicensed healthcare providers were excluded from the analysis, the majority of people accessed public sector care. "Competitive dynamics" for funding appeared between the two sectors, such that public funds and personnel were redirected to private sector development, followed by reductions in public sector service budgets and staff.ConclusionsStudies evaluated in this systematic review do not support the claim that the private sector is usually more efficient, accountable, or medically effective than the public sector; however, the public sector appears frequently to lack timeliness and hospitality towards patients.

Dataset Information

How to assess and prepare health systems in low- and middle-income countries for integration of services-a systematic review.

Publications

How to assess and prepare health systems in low- and middle-income countries for integration of services-a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets