Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27591205›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2016

District decision-making for health in low-income settings: a qualitative study in Uttar Pradesh, India, on engaging the private health sector in sharing health-related data.

Meenakshi Gautham, Neil Spicer, Manish Subharwal, Sanjay Gupta, Aradhana Srivastava, Sanghita Bhattacharyya, Bilal Iqbal Avan, Joanna Schellenberg

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05310682 (Data-Informed Platform for Health), which is not on this 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.

NCT05310682 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Data-Informed Platform for Health (DIPH)

TypeinterventionalSponsorLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineRan2020 to 2022Enrolled24ConditionsBehaviorArmsData informed Platfrom for health
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. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

8 authors.

Meenakshi GauthamIDEAS Project, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK, meenakshi.gautham@lshtm.ac.uk.
Neil SpicerIDEAS Project, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Manish SubharwalImpact Partners in Social Development, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, India.
Sanjay GuptaImpact Partners in Social Development, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, India.
Aradhana SrivastavaPublic Health Foundation of India, Vasant Kunj Institutional Area, New Delhi, India.
Sanghita BhattacharyyaPublic Health Foundation of India, Vasant Kunj Institutional Area, New Delhi, India.
Bilal Iqbal AvanIDEAS Project, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Joanna SchellenbergIDEAS Project, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health information systems are an important planning and monitoring tool for public health services, but may lack information from the private health sector. In this fourth article in a series on district decision-making for health, we assessed the extent of maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH)-related data sharing between the private and public sectors in two districts of Uttar Pradesh, India; analysed barriers to data sharing; and identified key inputs required for data sharing. Between March 2013 and August 2014, we conducted 74 key informant interviews at national, state and district levels. Respondents were stakeholders from national, state and district health departments, professional associations, non-governmental programmes and private commercial health facilities with 3-200 beds. Qualitative data were analysed using a framework based on a priori and emerging themes. Private facilities registered for ultrasounds and abortions submitted standardized records on these services, which is compulsory under Indian laws. Data sharing for other services was weak, but most facilities maintained basic records related to institutional deliveries and newborns. Public health facilities in blocks collected these data from a few private facilities using different methods. The major barriers to data sharing included the public sector's non-standardized data collection and utilization systems for MNCH and lack of communication and follow up with private facilities. Private facilities feared information disclosure and the additional burden of reporting, but were willing to share data if asked officially, provided the process was simple and they were assured of confidentiality. Unregistered facilities, managed by providers without a biomedical qualification, also conducted institutional deliveries, but were outside any reporting loops. Our findings suggest that even without legislation, the public sector could set up an effective MNCH data sharing strategy with private registered facilities by developing a standardized and simple system with consistent communication and follow up.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdministrative PersonnelData CollectionDelivery of Health CareDeveloping CountriesHealth Information SystemsHumansIndiaInformation DisseminationInterviews as TopicMaternal-Child Health ServicesPovertyPrivate SectorPublic-Private Sector PartnershipsQualitative ResearchData sharinghealth management information systemMNCH dataprivate health sectorpublic health sectorpublic–private engagement

Identifiers

PMID27591205
PMCPMC5009220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.