Dataset Information

Outcomes of HIV treatment from the private sector in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Private sector provision of HIV treatment is increasing in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC). However, there is limited documentation of its outcomes. This protocol reports a proposed systematic review that will synthesise clinical outcomes of private sector HIV treatment in LMIC.

Methods and analysis

This review will be conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses protocols. Primary outcomes will include: (1) proportion of eligible patients initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART); (2) proportion of those on ART with <1000 copies/mL; (3) rate of all-cause mortality among ART recipients. Secondary outcomes will include: (1) proportion receiving Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia prophylaxis; (2) proportion with >90%?ART adherence (based on any measure reported); (3) proportion screened for non-communicable diseases (specifically cervical cancer, diabetes, hypertension and mental ill health); (iv) proportion screened for tuberculosis. A search of five electronic bibliographical databases (Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL) and reference lists of included articles will be conducted to identify relevant articles reporting HIV clinical outcomes. Searches will be limited to LMIC. No age, publication date, study-design or language limits will be applied. Authors of relevant studies will be contacted for clarification. Two reviewers will independently screen citations and abstracts, identify full text articles for inclusion, extract data and appraise the quality and bias of included studies. Outcome data will be pooled to generate aggregative proportions of primary and secondary outcomes. Descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis will be presented. Heterogeneity and sensitivity assessments will be conducted to aid interpretation of results.

Ethics and dissemination

The results of this review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed scientific manuscript and at international scientific conferences. Results will inform quality improvement strategies, replication of identified good practices, potential policy changes, and future research.

Prospero registration number

CRD42016040053.

SUBMITTER: Mburu G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6955520 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTo accelerate progress to reach the sustainable development goals for ending preventable maternal, newborn and child deaths, it is critical that both the public and private health service delivery systems invest in increasing coverage of interventions to sustainably deliver quality care for mothers, newborns and children at scale. Although various approaches have been successful in high-income countries, little is known about how to effectively engage and sustain private sector involvement in delivering quality care in low-income and middle-income countries. Our systematic review will examine private sector implementation of quality care for maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) and the impact of this care. This protocol details our intended methodological and analytical approaches, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline for protocols.Methods and analysisFollowing the PRISMA approach, this systematic review will include quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies addressing the provision of quality MNCH care by private sector providers. Eight databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, EconLit, Excerpta Medica Database, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Popline, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science) and two websites will be searched for relevant studies published between 1 January 1995 and 30 June 2019. For inclusion, studies in low-income and middle-income countries must examine at least one of the following critical outcomes: maternal morbidity or mortality, newborn morbidity or mortality, child morbidity or mortality, quality of care, experience of care and service utilisation. Depending on the data, analyses could include meta-analysis, descriptive quantitative statistics, narrative synthesis and thematic synthesis. Quality will be assessed using tools for qualitative and quantitative studies.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required for this research, as the secondary data are not identifiable. Findings from this review will be used to develop models for effective collaboration of the private and public sectors in implementing quality of care for MNCH. In addition to publishing our findings in a peer-reviewed journal, the findings will be shared through the Quality of Care Network, relevant mailing lists, webinars and social media.Prospero registration numberCRD42019143383.

Project description:BackgroundExperience of care is a pillar of quality care; positive experiences are essential during health care encounters and integral to quality health service delivery. Yet, we lack synthesised knowledge of how private sector delivery of quality care affects experiences of care amongst mothers, newborns, and children. To fill this gap, we conducted a systematic review that examined quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies on the provision of maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) care by private providers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This manuscript focuses on experience of care, including respectful care, and satisfaction with care.MethodsOur protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Searches were conducted in eight electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, EconLit, Excerpta Medica Database, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Popline, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science) and two websites and supplemented with hand-searches and expert recommendations. For inclusion, studies examining private sector delivery of quality care amongst mothers, newborns, and children in LMICs must have examined maternal, newborn, and/or child morbidity or mortality; quality of care; experience of care; and/or service utilisation. Data were extracted for descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.ResultsOf the 139 studies included, 45 studies reported data on experience of care. Most studies reporting experience of care were conducted in India, Bangladesh, and Uganda. Experiences of private care amongst mothers, newborns, and children aligned with four components of quality of care: patient-centeredness, timeliness, effectiveness, and equity. Interpersonal relationships with health care workers were essential to experience of care, in particular staff friendliness, positive attitudes, and time spent with health care providers. Experience of care can be a stronger determining factor in MNCH-related decision-making than the quality of services provided.ConclusionPositive experiences of care in private facilities can be linked more broadly to privileges of private care that allow for shorter waiting times and more provider time spent with mothers, newborns, and children. Little is known about experiences of private sector care amongst children.Trial registrationThis systematic review was registered with the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42019143383 ).

Project description:Introduction:There is a significant disparity in outcomes for neonates with gastroschisis in high-income countries (HICs) compared with low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Many LMICs report mortality rates between 75% and 100% compared with <4% in HICs. Aim:To undertake a systematic review identifying postnatal interventions associated with improved outcomes for gastroschisis in LMICs. Methods and analysis:Three search strings will be combined: (1) neonates; (2) gastroschisis and other gastrointestinal congenital anomalies requiring similar surgical care; (3) LMICs. Databases to be searched include MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis Global, and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature will be identified through Open-Grey, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and ISRCTN registry (Springer Nature). Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two reviewers independently and team consensus sought on discrepancies. The primary outcome of interest is mortality. Secondary outcomes include complications, requirement for ventilation, parenteral nutrition duration and length of hospital stay. Tertiary outcomes include service delivery and implementation outcomes. The methodology of the studies will be appraised. Descriptive statistics and outcomes will be summarised and discussed. Ethics and dissemination:Ethical approval is not required since no new data are being collected. Dissemination will be via open access publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal and distribution among global health, global surgery and children's surgical collaborations and international conferences. Conclusion:This study will systematically review literature focused on postnatal interventions to improve outcomes from gastroschisis in LMICs. Findings can be used to help inform quality improvement projects in low-resource settings for patients with gastroschisis. In the first instance, results will be used to inform a Wellcome Trust-funded multicentre clinical interventional study aimed at improving outcomes for gastroschisis across sub-Saharan Africa. PROSPERO registration number:CRD42018095349.

Project description:BackgroundThe poor in low and middle income countries have limited access to health services due to limited purchasing power, residence in underserved areas, and inadequate health literacy. This produces significant gaps in health care delivery among a population that has a disproportionately large burden of disease. They frequently use the private health sector, due to perceived or actual gaps in public services. A subset of private health organizations, some called social enterprises, have developed novel approaches to increase the availability, affordability and quality of health care services to the poor through innovative health service delivery models. This study aims to characterize these models and identify areas of innovation that have led to effective provision of care for the poor.MethodsAn environmental scan of peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted to select exemplars of innovation. A case series of organizations was then purposively sampled to maximize variation. These cases were examined using content analysis and constant comparison to characterize their strategies, focusing on business processes.ResultsAfter an initial sample of 46 studies, 10 case studies of exemplars were developed spanning different geography, disease areas and health service delivery models. These ten organizations had innovations in their marketing, financing, and operating strategies. These included approaches such a social marketing, cross-subsidy, high-volume, low cost models, and process reengineering. They tended to have a narrow clinical focus, which facilitates standardizing processes of care, and experimentation with novel delivery models. Despite being well-known, information on the social impact of these organizations was variable, with more data on availability and affordability and less on quality of care.ConclusionsThese private sector organizations demonstrate a range of innovations in health service delivery that have the potential to better serve the poor's health needs and be replicated. There is a growing interest in investing in social enterprises, like the ones profiled here. However, more rigorous evaluations are needed to investigate the impact and quality of the health services provided and determine the effectiveness of particular strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Transportation interventions seek to decrease delay in reaching a health facility for emergency obstetric care and are, thus, believed to contribute to reductions in such adverse pregnancy and childbirth outcomes as maternal deaths, stillbirths, and neonatal mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, there is limited empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. The objective of the proposed review is to summarize and critically appraise evidence regarding the effect of emergency transportation interventions on outcomes of labor and delivery in LMICs. METHODS:The following databases will be searched from inception to March 31, 2018: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO (PsycINFO and CINAHL), the Cochrane Pregnancy and Child Birth Group's Specialized Register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will search for studies in the grey literature through Google and Google Scholar. We will solicit unpublished reports from such relevant agencies as United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DfID) among others. Data generated from the search will be managed using Endnote Version 7. We will perform quantitative data synthesis if studies are homogenous in characteristics and provide adequate outcome data for meta-analysis. Otherwise, data will be synthesized, using the narrative synthesis approach. DISCUSSION:Among the many barriers that women in LMICs face in accessing life-saving interventions during labor and delivery, lack of access to emergency transportation is particularly important. This review will provide a critical summary of evidence regarding the impact of transportation interventions on outcomes of pregnancy and childbirth in LMICs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017080092.

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.