Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28685043›Full record

ReviewJournal of global health2017

Comprehensive review of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of community-based primary health care in improving maternal, neonatal and child health: 5. equity effects for neonates and children.

Meike Schleiff, Richard Kumapley, Paul A Freeman, Sundeep Gupta, Bahie M Rassekh, Henry B Perry

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of global health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Wealth and Education Inequities in Maternal and Child Health Services Utilization in Rural Ethiopia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Impact of theJournal of global health · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Communities, universal health coverage and primary health care.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2020
    Article
  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.

Meike SchleiffDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Richard KumapleyUNICEF, New York, New York, USA.
Paul A FreemanIndependent consultant, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Sundeep GuptaMedical epidemiologist, Lusaka, Zambia.
Bahie M RassekhThe World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Henry B PerryDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe degree to which investments in health programs improve the health of the most disadvantaged segments of the population-where utilization of health services and health status is often the worst-is a growing concern throughout the world. Therefore, questions about the degree to which community-based primary health care (CBPHC) can or actually does improve utilization of health services and the health status of the most disadvantaged children in a population is an important one.

methodsUsing a database containing information about the assessment of 548 interventions, projects or programs (referred to collectively as projects) that used CBPHC to improve child health, we extracted evidence related to equity from a sub-set of 42 projects, identified through a multi-step process, that included an equity analysis. We organized our findings conceptually around a logical framework matrix.

resultsOur analysis indicates that these CBPHC projects, all of which implemented child health interventions, achieved equitable effects. The vast majority (87%) of the 82 equity measurements carried out and reported for these 42 projects demonstrated "pro-equitable" or "equitable" effects, meaning that the project's equity indicator(s) improved to the same degree or more in the disadvantaged segments of the project population as in the more advantaged segments. Most (78%) of the all the measured equity effects were "pro-equitable," meaning that the equity criterion improved more in the most disadvantaged segment of the project population than in the other segments of the population.

conclusionsBased on the observation that CBPHC projects commonly provide services that are readily accessible to the entire project population and that even often reach down to all households, such projects are inherently likely to be more equitable than projects that strengthen services only at facilities, where utilization diminishes greatly with one's distance away. The decentralization of services and attention to and tracking of metrics across all phases of project implementation with attention to the underserved, as can be done in CBPHC projects, are important for reducing inequities in countries with a high burden of child mortality. Strengthening CBPHC is a necessary strategy for reducing inequities in child health and for achieving universal coverage of essential services for children.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesHealth Status DisparitiesPrimary Health CareChild HealthChild, PreschoolDeveloping CountriesHumansInfantInfant HealthInfant, NewbornProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID28685043
PMCPMC5491949

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.