Title |
A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries
|
---|---|
Published in |
Globalization and Health, April 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12992-017-0246-4 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jorge Coarasa, Jishnu Das, Elizabeth Gummerson, Asaf Bitton |
Abstract |
Systematic reviews are powerful tools for summarizing vast amounts of data in controversial areas; but their utility is limited by methodological choices and assumptions. Two systematic reviews of literature on the quality of private sector primary care in low and middle income countries (LMIC), published in the same journal within a year, reached conflicting conclusions. The difference in findings reflects different review methodologies, but more importantly, a weak underlying body of literature. A detailed examination of the literature cited in both reviews shows that only one of the underlying studies met the gold standard for methodological robustness. Given the current policy momentum on universal health coverage and primary health care reform across the globe, there is an urgent need for high quality empirical evidence on the quality of private versus public sector primary health care in LMIC. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 22 | 22% |
United Kingdom | 10 | 10% |
Canada | 7 | 7% |
India | 6 | 6% |
Switzerland | 4 | 4% |
Australia | 2 | 2% |
South Africa | 2 | 2% |
France | 2 | 2% |
Colombia | 1 | 1% |
Other | 9 | 9% |
Unknown | 34 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 65 | 66% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 17 | 17% |
Scientists | 14 | 14% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
South Africa | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 89 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 19 | 21% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 16% |
Other | 8 | 9% |
Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
Other | 14 | 16% |
Unknown | 23 | 26% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 22% |
Social Sciences | 13 | 14% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 10% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 6% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 3% |
Other | 12 | 13% |
Unknown | 28 | 31% |