Dataset Information

A systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies to improve health care provider performance in low- and middle-income countries: Methods and descriptive results.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health care provider (HCP) performance in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is often inadequate. The Health Care Provider Performance Review (HCPPR) is a comprehensive systematic review of the effectiveness and cost of strategies to improve HCP performance in LMICs. We present the HCPPR's methods, describe methodological and contextual attributes of included studies, and examine time trends of study attributes.

Methods

The HCPPR includes studies from LMICs that quantitatively evaluated any strategy to improve HCP performance for any health condition, with no language restrictions. Eligible study designs were controlled trials and interrupted time series. In 2006, we searched 15 databases for published studies; in 2008 and 2010, we completed searches of 30 document inventories for unpublished studies. Data from eligible reports were double-abstracted and entered into a database, which is publicly available. The primary outcome measure was the strategy's effect size. We assessed time trends with logistic, Poisson, and negative binomial regression modeling. We were unable to register with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) because the protocol was developed prior to the PROSPERO launch.

Results

We screened 105,299 citations and included 824 reports from 499 studies of 161 intervention strategies. Most strategies had multiple components and were tested by only one study each. Studies were from 79 countries and had diverse methodologies, geographic settings, HCP types, work environments, and health conditions. Training, supervision, and patient and community supports were the most commonly evaluated strategy components. Only 33.6% of studies had a low or moderate risk of bias. From 1958-2003, the number of studies per year and study quality increased significantly over time, as did the proportion of studies from low-income countries. Only 36.3% of studies reported information on strategy cost or cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

Studies have reported on the efficacy of many strategies to improve HCP performance in LMICs. However, most studies have important methodological limitations. The HCPPR is a publicly accessible resource for decision-makers, researchers, and others interested in improving HCP performance.

SUBMITTER: Rowe SY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6544255 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies to improve health care provider performance in low- and middle-income countries: Methods and descriptive results.

Rowe Samantha Y SY Peters David H DH Holloway Kathleen A KA Chalker John J Ross-Degnan Dennis D Rowe Alexander K AK

PloS one 20190531 5

<h4>Background</h4>Health care provider (HCP) performance in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is often inadequate. The Health Care Provider Performance Review (HCPPR) is a comprehensive systematic review of the effectiveness and cost of strategies to improve HCP performance in LMICs. We present the HCPPR's methods, describe methodological and contextual attributes of included studies, and examine time trends of study attributes.<h4>Methods</h4>The HCPPR includes studies from LMICs that q ...[more]

PMID: 31150458

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInadequate health-care provider performance is a major challenge to the delivery of high-quality health care in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The Health Care Provider Performance Review (HCPPR) is a comprehensive systematic review of strategies to improve health-care provider performance in LMICs.MethodsFor this systematic review we searched 52 electronic databases for published studies and 58 document inventories for unpublished studies from the 1960s to 2016. Eligible study designs were controlled trials and interrupted time series. We only included strategy-versus-control group comparisons. We present results of improving health-care provider practice outcomes expressed as percentages (eg, percentage of patients treated correctly) or as continuous measures (eg, number of medicines prescribed per patient). Effect sizes were calculated as absolute percentage-point changes. The summary measure for each comparison was the median effect size (MES) for all primary outcomes. Strategy effectiveness was described with weighted medians of MES. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016046154.FindingsWe screened 216 477 citations and selected 670 reports from 337 studies of 118 strategies. Most strategies had multiple intervention components. For professional health-care providers (generally, facility-based health workers), the effects were near zero for only implementing a technology-based strategy (median MES 1·0 percentage points, IQR -2·8 to 9·9) or only providing printed information for health-care providers (1·4 percentage points, -4·8 to 6·2). For percentage outcomes, training or supervision alone typically had moderate effects (10·3-15·9 percentage points), whereas combining training and supervision had somewhat larger effects than use of either strategy alone (18·0-18·8 percentage points). Group problem solving alone showed large improvements in percentage outcomes (28·0-37·5 percentage points), but, when the strategy definition was broadened to include group problem solving alone or other strategy components, moderate effects were more typical (12·1 percentage points). Several multifaceted strategies had large effects, but multifaceted strategies were not always more effective than simpler ones. For lay health-care providers (generally, community health workers), the effect of training alone was small (2·4 percentage points). Strategies with larger effect sizes included community support plus health-care provider training (8·2-125·0 percentage points). Contextual and methodological heterogeneity made comparisons difficult, and most strategies had low quality evidence.InterpretationThe impact of strategies to improve health-care provider practices varied substantially, although some approaches were more consistently effective than others. The breadth of the HCPPR makes its results valuable to decision makers for informing the selection of strategies to improve health-care provider practices in LMICs. These results also emphasise the need for researchers to use better methods to study the effectiveness of interventions.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, CDC Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough supervision is a ubiquitous approach to support health programs and improve health care provider (HCP) performance in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), quantitative evidence of its effects is unclear. The objectives of this study are to describe the effect of supervision strategies on HCP practices in LMICs and to identify attributes associated with greater effectiveness of routine supervision.MethodsWe performed a secondary analysis of data on HCP practice outcomes (e.g., percentage of patients correctly treated) from a systematic review on improving HCP performance. The review included controlled trials and interrupted time series studies. We described distributions of effect sizes (defined as percentage-point [%-point] changes) for each supervision strategy. To identify attributes associated with supervision effectiveness, we performed random-effects linear regression modeling and examined studies that directly compared different approaches of routine supervision.ResultsWe analyzed data from 81 studies from 36 countries. For professional HCPs, such as nurses and physicians, primarily working at health facilities, routine supervision (median improvement when compared to controls: 10.7%-points; IQR: 9.9, 27.9) had similar effects on HCP practices as audit with feedback (median improvement: 10.1%-points; IQR: 6.2, 23.7). Two attributes were associated with greater mean effectiveness of routine supervision (p < 0.10): supervisors received supervision (by 8.8-11.5%-points), and supervisors participated in problem-solving with HCPs (by 14.2-20.8%-points). Training for supervisors and use of a checklist during supervision visits were not associated with effectiveness. The effects of supervision frequency (i.e., number of visits per year) and dose (i.e., the number of supervision visits during a study) were unclear. For lay HCPs, the effect of routine supervision was difficult to characterize because few studies existed, and effectiveness in those studies varied considerably. Evidence quality for all findings was low primarily because many studies had a high risk of bias.ConclusionsAlthough evidence is limited, to promote more effective supervision, our study supports supervising supervisors and having supervisors engage in problem-solving with HCPs. Supervision's integral role in health systems in LMICs justifies a more deliberate research agenda to identify how to deliver supervision to optimize its effect on HCP practices.

Project description:BackgroundEach year almost 3 million newborns die within the first 28 days of life, 2.6 million babies are stillborn, and 287,000 women die from complications of pregnancy and childbirth worldwide. Effective and cost-effective interventions and behaviours for mothers and newborns exist, but their coverage remains inadequate in low- and middle-income countries, where the vast majority of deaths occur. Cost-effective strategies are needed to increase the coverage of life-saving maternal and newborn interventions and behaviours in resource-constrained settings.MethodsA systematic review was undertaken on the cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve the demand and supply of maternal and newborn health care in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Peer-reviewed and grey literature published since 1990 was searched using bibliographic databases, websites of selected organizations, and reference lists of relevant studies and reviews. Publications were eligible for inclusion if they report on a behavioural or health systems strategy that sought to improve the utilization or provision of care during pregnancy, childbirth or the neonatal period; report on its cost-effectiveness; and were set in one or more low-income or lower-middle-income countries. The quality of the publications was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. Incremental cost per life-year saved and per disability-adjusted life-year averted were compared to gross domestic product per capita.ResultsForty-eight publications were identified, which reported on 43 separate studies. Sixteen were judged to be of high quality. Common themes were identified and the strategies were presented in relation to the continuum of care and the level of the health system. There was reasonably strong evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the use of women's groups, home-based newborn care using community health workers and traditional birth attendants, adding services to routine antenatal care, a facility-based quality improvement initiative to enhance compliance with care standards, and the promotion of breastfeeding in maternity hospitals. Other strategies reported cost-effectiveness measures that had limited comparability.ConclusionDemand and supply-side strategies to improve maternal and newborn health care can be cost-effective, though the evidence is limited by the paucity of high quality studies and the use of disparate cost-effectiveness measures.Trial registrationPROSPERO_ CRD42012003255.

Project description:BackgroundImproving health workers' performance is vital for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. In the literature on human resource management (HRM) interventions to improve health workers' performance in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMIC), hardly any attention has been paid to the question how HRM interventions might bring about outcomes and in which contexts. Such information is, however, critical to assess the transferability of results. Our aim was to explore if realist review of published primary research provides better insight into the functioning of HRM interventions in LMIC.MethodologyA realist review not only asks whether an intervention has shown to be effective, but also through which mechanisms an intervention produces outcomes and which contextual factors appear to be of critical influence. Forty-eight published studies were reviewed.ResultsThe results show that HRM interventions can improve health workers' performance, but that different contexts produce different outcomes. Critical implementation aspects were involvement of local authorities, communities and management; adaptation to the local situation; and active involvement of local staff to identify and implement solutions to problems. Mechanisms that triggered change were increased knowledge and skills, feeling obliged to change and health workers' motivation. Mechanisms to contribute to motivation were health workers' awareness of local problems and staff empowerment, gaining acceptance of new information and creating a sense of belonging and respect. In addition, staff was motivated by visible improvements in quality of care and salary supplements. Only a limited variety of HRM interventions have been evaluated in the health sector in LMIC. Assumptions underlying HRM interventions are usually not made explicit, hampering our understanding of how HRM interventions work.ConclusionApplication of a realist perspective allows identifying which HRM interventions might improve performance, under which circumstances, and for which groups of health workers. To be better able to contribute to an understanding of how HRM interventions could improve health workers' performance, a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods would be needed and the use of common indicators for evaluation and a common reporting format would be required.

Project description:BackgroundLive oral rotavirus vaccines (LORVs) have significantly reduced rotavirus hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. However, LORVs are less effective in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Next-generation rotavirus vaccines (NGRVs) may be more effective but require administration by injection or a neonatal oral dose, adding operational complexity. Healthcare providers (HPs) were interviewed to assess rotavirus vaccine preferences and identify delivery issues as part of an NGRV value proposition.ObjectiveDetermine HP vaccine preferences about delivering LORVs compared to injectable (iNGRV) and neonatal oral (oNGRV) NGRVs.Methods64 HPs from Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Peru, and Senegal were interviewed following a mixed-method guide centered on three vaccine comparisons: LORV vs. iNGRV; LORV vs. oNGRV; oNGRV vs. iNGRV. HPs reviewed attributes for each vaccine in the comparisons, then indicated and explained their preference. Additional questions elicited views about co-administering iNGRV+LORV for greater public health impact, a possible iNGRV-DTP-containing combination vaccine, and delivering neonatal doses.ResultsAlmost all HPs preferred oral vaccine options over iNGRV, with many emphasizing an aversion to additional injections. Despite this strong preference, HPs described challenges delivering oral doses. Preferences for LORV vs. oNGRV were split, marked by disparate views on rotavirus disease epidemiology and the safety, need, and feasibility of delivering neonatal vaccines. Although overwhelmingly enthusiastic about an iNGRV-DTP-containing combination option, several HPs had concerns. HP views were divided on the feasibility of co-administering iNGRV+LORV, citing challenges around logistics and caregiver sensitization.ConclusionOur findings provide valuable insights on delivering NGRVs in routine immunization. Despite opposition to injectables, openness to co-administering LORV+iNGRV to improve efficacy suggests future HP support of iNGRV if adequately informed of its advantages. Rationales for LORV vs. oNGRV underscore needs for training on rotavirus epidemiology and stronger service integration. Expressed challenges delivering existing LORVs merit further examination and indicate need for improved delivery.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care has the potential to address a large proportion of people's health needs, promote equity, and contain costs, but only if it provides high-quality health services that people want to use. 40 years after the Declaration of Alma-Ata, little is known about the quality of primary care in low-income and middle-income countries. We assessed whether existing facility surveys capture relevant aspects of primary care performance and summarised the quality of primary care in ten low-income and middle-income countries.MethodsWe used Service Provision Assessment surveys, the most comprehensive nationally representative surveys of health systems, to select indicators corresponding to three of the process quality domains (competent systems, evidence-based care, and user experience) identified by the Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems in the Sustainable Development Goals Era. We calculated composite and domain quality scores for first-level primary care facilities across and within ten countries with available facility assessment data (Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda).FindingsData were available for 7049 facilities and 63?869 care visits. There were gaps in measurement of important outcomes such as user experience, health outcomes, and confidence, and processes such as timely action, choice of provider, affordability, ease of use, dignity, privacy, non-discrimination, autonomy, and confidentiality. No information about care competence was available outside maternal and child health. Overall, scores for primary care quality were low (mean 0·41 on a scale of 0 to 1). At a domain level, scores were lowest for user experience, followed by evidence-based care, and then competent systems. At the subdomain level, scores for patient focus, prevention and detection, technical quality of sick-child care, and population-health management were lower than those for other subdomains.InterpretationFacility surveys do not capture key elements of primary care quality. The available measures suggest major gaps in primary care quality. If not addressed, these gaps will limit the contribution of primary care to reaching the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies to improve health care provider performance in low- and middle-income countries: Methods and descriptive results.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies to improve health care provider performance in low- and middle-income countries: Methods and descriptive results.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets