Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10185140›Full record

ArticleQuality in health care : QHC1998

Health authority commissioning for quality in contraception services.

M Newman, M Bardsley, D Morgan, B Jacobson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality in health care : QHC, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 77% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M NewmanSchool of Health, Biological, and Environmental Sciences, Middlesex University, London, UK.
M Bardsley
D Morgan
B Jacobson
Middlesex University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the commissioning of contraception services by London health authorities with accepted models of good practice.

designCombined interview and postal surveys of all health authorities and National Health Service (NHS) trusts responsible for running family planning clinics in the Greater London area.

main outcome measuresHealth authority commissioning was assessed on the presence of four key elements of good practice--strategies, coordination, service specifications, and quality standards in contracts--by monitoring activity and quality.

resultsLess than half the health authorities surveyed had written strategies or service specifications for contraception services. Arrangements for coordination of services were limited and monitoring was underdeveloped.

conclusionThe process of commissioning services for contraception seems to be relatively underdeveloped despite the importance of health problems associated with unplanned pregnancy in London. These findings raise questions about the capacity of health authorities to improve the quality of these services through the commissioning process.

Indexed as

ContraceptionQuality Indicators, Health CareAdultContract ServicesFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansLondonMalePregnancyRegional Health PlanningState Medicine

Identifiers

PMID10185140
PMCPMC2483602
OpenAlexW2127157319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.