Comparability of family planning quality of care measurement tools in low-and-middle income country settings: a systematic review
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hazel E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8557007 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionSubstance use disorder (SUD) and problematic substance use are global public health concerns with significant multifaceted implications for physical health and psychosocial well-being. The impact of SUD extends beyond the individual to their family while imposing financial and social burdens on the community. Though family-centred interventions have shown promise in addressing SUD, their implementation and impact in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain underexplored.Methods and analysisPer Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review protocol, a systematic search strategy was employed across OVID Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science-Core Collection, Global Health and CINAHL from 22 February 2024 to 26 February 2024, to identify relevant studies focused on family-centred interventions for SUD in LMIC, devoid of publication time and language constraints. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full texts, with discrepancies resolved through discussion or third-party reviews. The extracted data charted in a structured form will be visualised by diagrams or tables, focusing on the feasibility and impact of family-centred interventions for SUD in LMIC. For qualitative studies, the findings will be synthesised and presented in thematic clusters, and for studies that report quantitative outcomes, specific health, including SUD and psychosocial, outcomes will be synthesised, aligning with the Population, Concept and Context framework.Ethics and disseminationThese data on substance use, psychosocial outcomes and perspectives of individuals with SUD and their families will be presented in narrative format, highlighting patterns and identifying research gaps. This review aims to synthesise the existing evidence on family-centred interventions for improving substance use and/or psychosocial outcomes in individuals with SUD in LMIC and seeks to inform future policy and practice. Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review, and modifications to the review protocol will be disclosed. Findings will be disseminated through conference proceedings and peer-reviewed publication.
| S-EPMC11367307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Family planning (FP) vouchers have targeted subsidies to disadvantaged populations for quality reproductive health services since the 1960s. To summarize the effect of FP voucher programs in low- and middle-income countries, a systematic review was conducted, screening studies from 33 databases through three phases: keyword search, title and abstract review, and full text review. Sixteen articles were selected including randomized control trials, controlled before-and-after, interrupted time series analyses, cohort, and before-and-after studies. Twenty-three study outcomes were clustered around contraceptive uptake, with study outcomes including fertility in the early studies and equity and discontinuation in more recent publications. Research gaps include measures of FP quality, unintended outcomes, clients' qualitative experiences, FP voucher integration with health systems, and issues related to scale-up of the voucher approach.
| S-EPMC5434952 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10691174 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7365372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The health sector plays an important role in the delivery of high-quality nutrition interventions to women and children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, there are no standardized approaches to defining and measuring nutrition service quality in these contexts. This study aims to systematically develop quality of care indices for direct health systems nutrition interventions using a five-step process: (1) identify recommended interventions for inclusion in indices, (2) extract service readiness, provision of care, and experience of care items from intervention-specific clinical guidelines, (3) map items to data available in global health facility surveys, (4) conduct an expert survey to prioritize interventions and items, and (5) use findings from previous steps to propose quality of care metrics. Thirty-two recommended interventions were identified, for which the guidelines review yielded 763 unique items that were reviewed by experts. The proposed nutrition quality of care indices for pregnant women reflects eight interventions and the indices for children under 5 reflects six interventions. The indices provide a standardized measure for nutrition intervention quality and can be operationalized using existing health facility assessment data, facilitating their use by LMIC decision makers for planning and resource allocation.
| S-EPMC8710116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundParental child feeding practices (PCFP) are a key factor influencing children's dietary intake, especially in the preschool years when eating behavior is being established. Instruments to measure PCFP have been developed and validated in high-income countries with a high prevalence of childhood obesity. The aim of this study was to test the appropriateness, content, and construct validity of selected measures of PCFP in a low and middle-income country (LMIC) in which there is both undernutrition and obesity in children.MethodsAn expert panel selected subscales and items from measures of PCFP that have been well-tested in high-income countries to measure both "coercive" and "structural" behaviors. Two sequential cross-sectional studies (Study 1, n =?154; Study 2, n =?238) were conducted in two provinces in Indonesia. Findings of the first study were used to refine subscales used in Study 2. An additional qualitative study tested content validity from the perspective of mothers (the intended respondents). Factorial validation and reliability were also tested. Convergent validity was tested with child nutritional status.ResultsIn Study 1, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model with 11 factors provided good fit (RMSEA?=?0.045; CFI?=?0.95 and TLI?=?0.95) after two subscales were removed. Reliability was good among seven of the subscales. Following a decision to take out an additional subscale, the instrument was tested for factorial validity (Study 2). A CFA model with 10 subscales provided good fit (RMSEA?=?0.03; CFI?=?0.92 and TLI?=?0.90). The reliability of subscales was lower than in Study 1. Convergent validity with nutrition status was found with two subscales.ConclusionsThe two studies provide evidence of acceptable psychometric properties for 10 subscales from tested instruments to measure PCFP in Indonesia. This provides the first evidence of the validity of these measures in a LMIC setting. Some shortcomings, such in the reliability of some subscales and further tests of predictive validity, require further investigation.
| S-EPMC6245694 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite growing interest in and commitment to integration, or integrated care, the concept is ill-defined and the resulting evidence base fragmented, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Underlying this challenge is a lack of coherent approaches to measure the extent of integration and how this influences desired outcomes. The aim of this scoping review is to identify measurement approaches for integration in LMICs and map them for future use.MethodsArksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews was followed. We conducted a systematic search of peer-reviewed literature measuring integration in LMICs across three databases and screened identified papers by predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A modified version of the Rainbow Model for Integrated Care guided charting and analysis of the data.ResultsWe included 99 studies. Studies were concentrated in the Africa region and most frequently focused on the integration of HIV care with other services. A range of definitions and methods were identified, with no single approach for the measurement of integration dominating the literature. Measurement of clinical integration was the most common, with indicators focused on measuring receipt of two or more services provided at a single point of time. Organizational and professional integration indicators were focused on inter- and intra-organizational communication, collaboration, coordination, and continuity of care, while functional integration measured common information systems or patient records. Gaps were identified in measuring systems and normative integration. Few tools were validated or publicly available for future use.ConclusionWe identified a wide range of recent approaches used to measure integration in LMICs. Our findings underscore continued challenges with lack of conceptual cohesion and fragmentation which limits how integration is understood in practice.
| S-EPMC10537146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMost of the global morbidity and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with significant economic effects.ObjectiveTo assess the discriminative accuracy of 3 instruments using questionnaires and peak expiratory flow (PEF) to screen for COPD in 3 LMIC settings.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional analysis of discriminative accuracy, conducted between January 2018 and March 2020 in semiurban Bhaktapur, Nepal; urban Lima, Peru; and rural Nakaseke, Uganda, using a random age- and sex-stratified sample of the population 40 years or older.ExposuresThree screening tools, the COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE; range, 0-6; high risk indicated by a score of 5 or more or score 2-5 with low PEF [<250 L/min for females and <350 L/min for males]), the COPD in LMICs Assessment questionnaire (COLA-6; range, 0-5; high risk indicated by a score of 4 or more), and the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ; range, 0-25; high risk indicated by a score of 18 or less) were assessed against a reference standard diagnosis of COPD using quality-assured postbronchodilator spirometry. CAPTURE and COLA-6 include a measure of PEF.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was discriminative accuracy of the tools in identifying COPD as measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.ResultsAmong 10 709 adults who consented to participate in the study (mean age, 56.3 years (SD, 11.7); 50% female), 35% had ever smoked, and 30% were currently exposed to biomass smoke. The unweighted prevalence of COPD at the 3 sites was 18.2% (642/3534 participants) in Nepal, 2.7% (97/3550) in Peru, and 7.4% (264/3580) in Uganda. Among 1000 COPD cases, 49.3% had clinically important disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease classification B-D), 16.4% had severe or very severe airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted), and 95.3% of cases were previously undiagnosed. The AUC for the screening instruments ranged from 0.717 (95% CI, 0.677-0.774) for LFQ in Peru to 0.791 (95% CI, 0.770-0.809) for COLA-6 in Nepal. The sensitivity ranged from 34.8% (95% CI, 25.3%-45.2%) for COLA-6 in Nepal to 64.2% (95% CI, 60.3%-67.9%) for CAPTURE in Nepal. The mean time to administer the instruments was 7.6 minutes (SD 1.11), and data completeness was 99.5%.Conclusions and relevanceThis study demonstrated that screening instruments for COPD were feasible to administer in 3 low- and middle-income settings. Further research is needed to assess instrument performance in other low- and middle-income settings and to determine whether implementation is associated with improved clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC8753498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many family health innovations that have been shown to be both efficacious and cost-effective fail to scale up for widespread use particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC). Although individual cases of successful scale-up, in which widespread take up occurs, have been described, we lack an integrated and practical model of scale-up that may be applicable to a wide range of public health innovations in LMIC.To develop an integrated and practical model of scale-up that synthesises experiences of family health programmes in LMICs.We conducted a mixed methods study that included in-depth interviews with 33 key informants and a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature from 11 electronic databases and 20 global health agency web sites.We included key informants and studies that reported on the scale up of several family health innovations including Depo-Provera as an example of a product innovation, exclusive breastfeeding as an example of a health behaviour innovation, community health workers (CHWs) as an example of an organisational innovation and social marketing as an example of a business model innovation. Key informants were drawn from non-governmental, government and international organisations using snowball sampling. An article was excluded if the article: did not meet the study's definition of the innovation; did not address dissemination, diffusion, scale up or sustainability of the innovation; did not address low-income or middle-income countries; was superficial in its discussion and/or did not provide empirical evidence about scale-up of the innovation; was not available online in full text; or was not available in English, French, Spanish or Portuguese, resulting in a final sample of 41 peer-reviewed articles and 30 grey literature sources.We used the constant comparative method of qualitative data analysis to extract recurrent themes from the interviews, and we integrated these themes with findings from the literature review to generate the proposed model of scale-up. For the systematic review, screening was conducted independently by two team members to ensure consistent application of the predetermined exclusion criteria. Data extraction from the final sample of peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted independently by two team members using a pre-established data extraction form to list the enabling factors and barriers to dissemination, diffusion, scale up and sustainability.The resulting model-the AIDED model-includes five non-linear, interrelated components: (1) assess the landscape, (2) innovate to fit user receptivity, (3) develop support, (4) engage user groups and (5) devolve efforts for spreading innovation. Our findings suggest that successful scale-up occurs within a complex adaptive system, characterised by interdependent parts, multiple feedback loops and several potential paths to achieve intended outcomes. Failure to scale up may be attributable to insufficient assessment of user groups in context, lack of fit of the innovation with user receptivity, inability to address resistance from stakeholders and inadequate engagement with user groups.The inductive approach used to construct the AIDED model did not allow for simultaneous empirical testing of the model. Furthermore, the literature may have publication bias in which negative studies are under-represented, although we did find examples of unsuccessful scale-up. Last, the AIDED model did not address long-term, sustained use of innovations that are successfully scaled up, which would require longer-term follow-up than is common in the literature.Flexible strategies of assessment, innovation, development, engagement and devolution are required to enable effective change in the use of family health innovations in LMIC.
| S-EPMC3432850 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundA significant number of women in low and middle income countries (L-MICs) who need any family planning, experience a lack in access to modern effective methods. This study was conducted to review potential cost effectiveness of scaling up family planning interventions in these regions from the published literatures and assess their implication for policy and future research.Study designA systematic review was performed in several electronic databases i.e Medline (Pubmed), Embase, Popline, The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), EBSCOHost, and The Cochrane Library. Articles reporting full economic evaluations of strategies to improve family planning interventions in one or more L-MICs, published between 1995 until 2015 were eligible for inclusion. Data was synthesized and analyzed using a narrative approach and the reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.ResultsFrom 920 references screened, 9 studies were eligible for inclusion. Six references assessed cost effectiveness of improving family planning interventions in one or more L-MICs, while the rest assessed costs and consequences of integrating family planning and HIV services, concerning sub-Saharan Africa. Assembled evidence suggested that improving family planning interventions is cost effective in a variety of L-MICs as measured against accepted international cost effectiveness benchmarks. In areas with high HIV prevalence, integrating family planning and HIV services can be efficient and cost effective; however the evidence is only supported by a very limited number of studies. The major drivers of cost effectiveness were cost of increasing coverage, effectiveness of the interventions and country-specific factors.ConclusionImproving family planning interventions in low and middle income countries appears to be cost-effective. Additional economic evaluation studies with improved reporting quality are necessary to generate further evidence on costs, cost-effectiveness, and affordability, and to support increased funding and investments in family planning programs.
| S-EPMC5167385 | biostudies-literature