Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27935799›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2017

Strengthening health information systems for disability-related rehabilitation in LMICs.

Anna McPherson, Jo Durham, Nicola Richards, Hebe Gouda, Rasika Rampatige, Maxine Whittaker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. How to become a strategic purchaser of rehabilitation services.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2022
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. New Ethical Issues in Cerebral Palsy.Frontiers in neurology · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Anna McPhersonFaculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland.
Jo DurhamFaculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland.
Nicola RichardsFaculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland.
Hebe GoudaFaculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland.
Rasika RampatigeFaculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, WHO Collaborating Centre for Health Information Systems, 288 Herston Road, Herston, Brisbane, QLD 4006, Australia.
Maxine WhittakerFaculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, WHO Collaborating Centre for Health Information Systems, 288 Herston Road, Herston, Brisbane, QLD 4006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe the state of rehabilitation health information systems (HIS) in different settings, and identify key processes and actions which contribute to the development of HIS which can effectively support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) allocate resources to health-related rehabilitation to people with disabilities. Nine case studies were conducted across different disability and developmental settings using documentary review and semi-structured key informant interviews (N = 41). Results were analysed against the six building blocks of a HIS, based on the Health Metrics Network Framework and Standards for Country Health Information Systems and existing HIS capacity. Key barriers or enablers to good disability data collection and use, were documented for each HIS component. Research results suggest there is no gold standard HIS for rehabilitation. There was broad consensus however, that effective health related disability planning requires reliable data on disability prevalence, functional status, access to rehabilitation services and functional outcomes of rehabilitation. For low-resource settings, and where routine HIS are already challenged, planning to include disability and rehabilitation foci starting with a minimum dataset on functioning, and progressively improving the system for increased utility and harmonization, is likely to be most effective and minimize the potential for overburdening fragile systems. The recommendations from this study are based on the successes and challenges of countries with established information systems, and will assist LMICs to prioritize strategic measures to strengthen the collection and use of data for rehabilitation, and progressively realize the rights of people with disabilities.

Indexed as

Persons with DisabilitiesRehabilitationDeveloping CountriesHealth Information SystemsHealth ResourcesHumansInformation DisseminationOrganizational Case StudiesPovertyDisabilityhealth information systemsLMICsrehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID27935799
PMCPMC5400158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.