Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27776127›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2016

Integrated Healthcare Delivery: A Qualitative Research Approach to Identifying and Harmonizing Perspectives of Integrated Neglected Tropical Disease Programs.

Arianna Rubin Means, Julie Jacobson, Aryc W Mosher, Judd L Walson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Glycyrrhizin alleviatesJournal of thoracic disease · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Investigating the Effectiveness of Current and Modified World Health Organization Guidelines for the Control of Soil-Transmitted Helminth Infections.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2018
    Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Arianna Rubin MeansDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4087-7080
Julie JacobsonNeglected Tropical Diseases, Global Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Aryc W MosherNeglected Tropical Diseases, Global Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Judd L WalsonDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.

Funding

University of Washington/Fred Hutch Center for AIDS ResearchP30AI027757 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI EDWIN ROBERTO ORELLANA · 1988 to 2026
$104.9M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile some evidence supports the beneficial effects of integrating neglected tropical disease (NTD) programs to optimize coverage and reduce costs, there is minimal information regarding when or how to effectively operationalize program integration. The lack of systematic analyses of integration experiences and of integration processes may act as an impediment to achieving more effective NTD programming. We aimed to learn about the experiences of NTD stakeholders and their perceptions of integration. METHODOLOGY: We evaluated differences in the definitions, roles, perceived effectiveness, and implementation experiences of integrated NTD programs among a variety of NTD stakeholder groups, including multilateral organizations, funding partners, implementation partners, national Ministry of Health (MOH) teams, district MOH teams, volunteer rural health workers, and community members participating in NTD campaigns. Semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted. Coding of themes involved a mix of applying in-vivo open coding and a priori thematic coding from a start list.

findingsIn total, 41 interviews were conducted. Salient themes varied by stakeholder, however dominant themes on integration included: significant variations in definitions, differential effectiveness of specific integrated NTD activities, community member perceptions of NTD programs, the influence of funders, perceived facilitators, perceived barriers, and the effects of integration on health system strength. In general, stakeholder groups provided unique perspectives, rather than contrarian points of view, on the same topics. The stakeholders identified more advantages to integration than disadvantages, however there are a number of both unique facilitators and challenges to integration from the perspective of each stakeholder group.

conclusionsQualitative data suggest several structural, process, and technical opportunities that could be addressed to promote more effective and efficient integrated NTD elimination programs. We highlight a set of ten recommendations that may address stakeholder concerns and perceptions regarding these key opportunities. For example, public health stakeholders should embrace a broader perspective of community-based health needs, including and beyond NTDs, and available platforms for addressing those needs.

Indexed as

Neglected DiseasesProgram EvaluationTropical MedicineCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedHumansPublic HealthQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID27776127
PMCPMC5077162

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.