Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27186645›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2016

Prioritizing Surgical Care on National Health Agendas: A Qualitative Case Study of Papua New Guinea, Uganda, and Sierra Leone.

Anna J Dare, Katherine C Lee, Josh Bleicher, Alex E Elobu, Thaim B Kamara, Osborne Liko, Samuel Luboga, Akule Danlop, Gabriel Kune, Lars Hagander and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
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

12 authors.

Anna J DareKing's Centre for Global Health, King's College London and King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom.
Katherine C LeeGlobal Health Group, Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Josh BleicherGlobal Health Group, Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Alex E ElobuDepartment of Surgery, Mulago Hospital, Kampala, Uganda.
Thaim B KamaraDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences, University of Sierra Leone, Freetown, Sierra Leone.
Osborne LikoDepartment of Surgery, Port Moresby General Hospital, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
Samuel LubogaDepartment of Anatomy, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Akule DanlopDepartment of Surgery, Port Moresby General Hospital, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
Gabriel KuneDepartment of Surgery, Port Moresby General Hospital, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
Lars HaganderDepartment of Clinical Sciences-Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Andrew J M LeatherKing's Centre for Global Health, King's College London and King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom.
Gavin YameyDuke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about the social and political factors that influence priority setting for different health services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet these factors are integral to understanding how national health agendas are established. We investigated factors that facilitate or prevent surgical care from being prioritized in LMICs. METHODS AND

findingsWe undertook country case studies in Papua New Guinea, Uganda, and Sierra Leone, using a qualitative process-tracing method. We conducted 74 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in health agenda setting and surgical care in these countries. Interviews were triangulated with published academic literature, country reports, national health plans, and policies. Data were analyzed using a conceptual framework based on four components (actor power, ideas, political contexts, issue characteristics) to assess national factors influencing priority for surgery. Political priority for surgical care in the three countries varies. Priority was highest in Papua New Guinea, where surgical care is firmly embedded within national health plans and receives significant domestic and international resources, and much lower in Uganda and Sierra Leone. Factors influencing whether surgical care was prioritized were the degree of sustained and effective domestic advocacy by the local surgical community, the national political and economic environment in which health policy setting occurs, and the influence of international actors, particularly donors, on national agenda setting. The results from Papua New Guinea show that a strong surgical community can generate priority from the ground up, even where other factors are unfavorable.

conclusionsNational health agenda setting is a complex social and political process. To embed surgical care within national health policy, sustained advocacy efforts, effective framing of the problem and solutions, and country-specific data are required. Political, technical, and financial support from regional and international partners is also important.

Indexed as

Health PlanningHealth PolicyHumansPapua New GuineaPolicy MakingPoliticsSierra LeoneSocioeconomic FactorsSurgical Procedures, OperativeUganda

Identifiers

PMID27186645
PMCPMC4871553

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.