Samantha Y Rowe1,2, David H Peters3, Kathleen A Holloway4,5, John Chalker6, Dennis Ross-Degnan7,8, Alexander K Rowe1. 1. Malaria Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America. 2. CDC Foundation, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America. 3. Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America. 4. World Health Organization, Southeast Asia Regional Office, New Delhi, India. 5. International Institute of Health Management Research, Jaipur, India. 6. Pharmaceuticals & Health Technologies Group, Management Sciences for Health, Arlington, Virginia, United States of America. 7. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. 8. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
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we searched 15 databases for published studies; in 2008 and 2010, we completed searches of 30 document inventories for unpublished studies.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.
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.
Authors: Shams El Arifeen; Lauren S Blum; D M Emdadul Hoque; Enayet K Chowdhury; Rasheda Khan; Robert E Black; Cesar G Victora; Jennifer Bryce Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Oct 30-Nov 5 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Charles S Wiysonge; Elizabeth Paulsen; Simon Lewin; Agustín Ciapponi; Cristian A Herrera; Newton Opiyo; Tomas Pantoja; Gabriel Rada; Andrew D Oxman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-09-11
Authors: Cristian A Herrera; Simon Lewin; Elizabeth Paulsen; Agustín Ciapponi; Newton Opiyo; Tomas Pantoja; Gabriel Rada; Charles S Wiysonge; Gabriel Bastías; Sebastian Garcia Marti; Charles I Okwundu; Blanca Peñaloza; Andrew D Oxman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-09-12
Authors: Peter Andrew Meaney; Christine Lynn Joyce; Segolame Setlhare; Hannah E Smith; Janell L Mensinger; Bingqing Zhang; Kitenge Kalenga; David Kloeck; Thandie Kgosiesele; Haruna Jibril; Loeto Mazhani; Allan de Caen; Andrew P Steenhoff Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Michel Juarez; Carlos Dionicio; Neftali Sacuj; Waleska Lopez; Ann C Miller; Peter Rohloff Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lisa M Puchalski Ritchie; Esther C Kip; Hayley Mundeva; Monique van Lettow; Austine Makwakwa; Sharon E Straus; Jemila S Hamid; Merrick Zwarenstein; Michael J Schull; Adrienne K Chan; Alexandra Martiniuk; Vanessa van Schoor Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sophie Witter; Mariam M Hamza; Nahar Alazemi; Mohammed Alluhidan; Taghred Alghaith; Christopher H Herbst Journal: Hum Resour Health Date: 2020-06-08