Dataset Information

Predictors of patient-reported quality of care in low- and middle-income countries: a four-country survey of person-centered care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Person-centeredness is a foundation of high-quality health systems but is poorly measured in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We piloted an online survey of four LMICs to identify the prevalence and correlates of excellent patient-reported quality of care (QOC).

Objective

The aims of this study were to investigate the examine people's overall ratings of care quality in relation to their experiences seeking care in their respective health systems as well as individual-, provider- and facility-level predictors.

Methods

We administered a cross-sectional online survey using Random Domain Intercept Technology to collect a sample of random internet users across India, Kenya, Mexico and Nigeria in November 2016. The primary outcome was patient-reported QOC. Covariates included age, gender, level of education, urban/rural residence, person for whom care was sought, type of provider seen, public or private sector status of the health facility and type of facility. The exposure was an index of health system responsiveness based on a framework from the World Health Organization. We used descriptive statistics to determine the prevalence of excellent patient-reported QOC and multivariable Poisson regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for predictors of excellent patient-reported quality.

Results

Fourteen thousand and eight people completed the survey (22.6% completion rate). Survey respondents tended to be young, male, well-educated and urban-dwelling, reflective of the demographic of the internet-using population. Four thousand one and ninety-one (29.9%) respondents sought care in the prior 6 months. Of those, 21.8% rated their QOC as excellent. The highest proportion of respondents gave the top rating for wait time (44.6%), while the lowest proportion gave the top rating for facility cleanliness (21.7%). In an adjusted analysis, people who experienced the highest level of health system responsiveness were significantly more likely to report excellent QOC compared to those who did not (aPR 8.61, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 7.50, 9.89). In the adjusted model, urban-dwelling individuals were less likely to report excellent quality compared to rural-dwelling individuals (aPR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.99). People who saw community health workers (aPR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.67) and specialists (aPR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.50) were more likely to report excellent quality than those who saw primary care providers. High perceived respect from the provider or staff was most highly associated with excellent ratings of quality, while ratings of wait time corresponded the least.

Conclusion

Patient-reported QOC is low in four LMICs, even among a well-educated, young population of internet users. Better health system responsiveness may be associated with better ratings of care quality. Improving person-centered care will be an important component of building high-quality health systems in these LMICs.

SUBMITTER: Kim JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8519224 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assess patients' perspectives on their health status, providing opportunities to improve the quality of care. While PROMs are increasingly used in high-income settings, limited data are available on PROMs use for diabetes and hypertension in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This scoping review aimed to determine how PROMs are employed for diabetes and hypertension care in LMICs.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov for English-language studies published between August 2009 and August 2019 that measured at least one PROM related to diabetes or hypertension in LMICs. Full texts of included studies were examined to assess study characteristics, target population, outcome focus, PROMs used, and methods for data collection and reporting.ResultsSixty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and reported on PROMs for people diagnosed with hypertension and/or diabetes and receiving care in health facilities. Thirty-nine (57%) reported on upper-middle-income countries, 19 (28%) reported on lower-middle-income countries, 4 (6%) reported on low-income countries, and 6 (9%) were multi-country. Most focused on diabetes (60/68, 88%), while 4 studies focused on hypertension and 4 focused on diabetes/hypertension comorbidity. Outcomes of interest varied; most common were glycemic or blood pressure control (38), health literacy and treatment adherence (27), and acute complications (22). Collectively the studies deployed 55 unique tools to measure patient outcomes. Most common were the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (7) and EuroQoL-5D-3L (7).ConclusionPROMs are deployed in LMICs around the world, with greatest reported use in LMICs with an upper-middle-income classification. Diabetes PROMs were more widely deployed in LMICs than hypertension PROMs, suggesting an opportunity to adapt PROMs for hypertension. Future research focusing on standardization and simplification could improve future comparability and adaptability across LMIC contexts. Incorporation into national health information systems would best establish PROMs as a means to reveal the effectiveness of person-centered diabetes and hypertension care.

Project description:BackgroundPrior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature.MethodsA search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020.ResultsA total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%).ConclusionsThis review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Project description:To provide an update on economic related inequalities in caesarean section rates within countries.Secondary analysis of demographic and health surveys and multiple indicator cluster surveys.72 low and middle income countries with a survey conducted between 2010 and 2014 for analysis of the latest situation of inequality, and 28 countries with a survey also conducted between 2000 and 2004 for analysis of the change in inequality over time.Women aged 15-49 years with a live birth during the two or three years preceding the survey.Data on caesarean section were disaggregated by asset based household wealth status and presented separately for five subgroups, ranging from the poorest to the richest fifth. Absolute and relative inequalities were measured using difference and ratio measures. The pace of change in the poorest and richest fifths was compared using a measure of excess change.National caesarean section rates ranged from 0.6% in South Sudan to 58.9% in the Dominican Republic. Within countries, caesarean section rates were lowest in the poorest fifth (median 3.7%) and highest in the richest fifth (median 18.4%). 18 out of 72 study countries reported a difference of 20 percentage points or higher between the richest and poorest fifth. The highest caesarean section rates and greatest levels of absolute inequality were observed in countries from the region of the Americas, whereas countries from the African region had low levels of caesarean use and comparatively lower levels of absolute inequality, although relative inequality was quite high in some countries. 26 out of 28 countries reported increases in caesarean section rates over time. Rates tended to increase faster in the richest fifth (median 0.9 percentage points per year) compared with the poorest fifth (median 0.2 percentage points per year), indicating an increase in inequality over time in most of these countries.Substantial within country economic inequalities in caesarean deliveries remain. These inequalities might be due to a combination of inadequate access to emergency obstetric care among the poorest subgroups and high levels of caesarean use without medical indication in the richest subgroups, especially in middle income countries. Country specific strategies should address these inequalities to improve maternal and newborn health.

Project description:BackgroundEvery Newborn Action Plan (ENAP) coverage target 4 necessitates national scale-up of Level-2 Small and Sick Newborn Care (SSNC) (with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP)) in 80% of districts by 2025. Routine neonatal inpatient data is important for improving quality of care, targeting equity gaps, and enabling data-driven decision-making at individual, district, and national-levels. Existing neonatal inpatient datasets vary in purpose, size, definitions, and collection processes. We describe the co-design and operationalisation of a core inpatient dataset for use to track outcomes and improve quality of care for small and sick newborns in high-mortality settings.MethodsA three-step systematic framework was used to review, co-design, and operationalise this novel neonatal inpatient dataset in four countries (Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania, and Nigeria) implementing with the Newborn Essential Solutions and Technologies (NEST360) Alliance. Existing global and national datasets were identified, and variables were mapped according to categories. A priori considerations for variable inclusion were determined by clinicians and policymakers from the four African governments by facilitated group discussions. These included prioritising clinical care and newborn outcomes data, a parsimonious variable list, and electronic data entry. The tool was designed and refined by > 40 implementers and policymakers during a multi-stakeholder workshop and online interactions.ResultsIdentified national and international datasets (n = 6) contained a median of 89 (IQR:61-154) variables, with many relating to research-specific initiatives. Maternal antenatal/intrapartum history was the largest variable category (21, 23.3%). The Neonatal Inpatient Dataset (NID) includes 60 core variables organised in six categories: (1) birth details/maternal history; (2) admission details/identifiers; (3) clinical complications/observations; (4) interventions/investigations; (5) discharge outcomes; and (6) diagnosis/cause-of-death. Categories were informed through the mapping process. The NID has been implemented at 69 neonatal units in four African countries and links to a facility-level quality improvement (QI) dashboard used in real-time by facility staff.ConclusionThe NEST360 NID is a novel, parsimonious tool for use in routine information systems to inform inpatient SSNC quality. Available on the NEST360/United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Implementation Toolkit for SSNC, this adaptable tool enables facility and country-level comparisons to accelerate progress toward ENAP targets. Additional linked modules could include neonatal at-risk follow-up, retinopathy of prematurity, and Level-3 intensive care.