Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26666356›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2015

A rapid evidence review on the effectiveness of institutional health partnerships.

Ema Kelly, Vicki Doyle, David Weakliam, Yvonne Schönemann

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Improving the quality of care for people who had a stroke in a low-/middle-income country: A qualitative analysis of health-care professionals' perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ema KellyCapacity Development International, Liverpool, UK. ekelly@capacity-development.com.
Vicki DoyleCapacity Development International, Liverpool, UK. vdoyle@capacity-development.com.
David WeakliamEuropean ESTHER Alliance, Paris, France. david.weakliam@hse.ie.
Yvonne SchönemannEuropean ESTHER Alliance, Paris, France. yvonne.schoenemann@giz.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInstitutional Health Partnerships are long-term, institution to institution partnerships between high income and low and middle income countries which seek to build capacity and strengthen health institutions in order to improve health service delivery and outcomes. Funding for Institutional Health Partnerships has increased in recent years. This paper outlines a rapid evidence review on the effectiveness of this modality.

methodsA rapid evidence review of published and grey literature was conducted. Content relating to the effectiveness of working in partnership and methods and frameworks used were extracted and analysed. The results of this analysis were used to structure a discussion regarding the next steps to strengthen the evidence base for the effectiveness of institutional health partnerships.

resultsThe evidence review, including citation mapping, returned 27 published papers and 17 grey literature documents that met all of the inclusion criteria. Most of the literature did not meet the high standards of formal academic rigour and there was no original research amongst this literature that specifically addressed the effectiveness of institutional health partnerships. This was not surprising given institutional health partnerships do not lend themselves easily to case control studies and randomised control trials due to their high level of diversity and operation in complex social systems. There was, however, a body of practice based knowledge and experience.

conclusionsEvidence for the effectiveness of Institutional Health Partnerships is thin both in terms of quantity and academic rigour. There is a need to better define and differentiate Institutional Health Partnerships in order to measure and compare effectiveness across such a diverse group. Effectiveness needs to be measured at the level of individual partnerships, the bodies that facilitate partnership programmes and the level of health service delivery. There is a need to develop indicators and frameworks that specifically address the benefits and values of partnership working and how these relate to effectiveness. These indicators need to be content neutral of specific interventions which are already measured through routine project monitoring and evaluation. This will allow the development of methodological pathways to assess the effectiveness of institutional health partnerships. Until more primary research is conducted or published there is little benefit in further systematic reviews.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorDeveloping CountriesDelivery of Health CareHumansOrganizational PolicyProfessional CompetenceQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID26666356
PMCPMC4678480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.