ArticlePrimary health care research & development2018
Methodological and practical viewpoints of qualitative-driven mixed method design: the case of decentralisation of primary healthcare services in Nepal.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of community health workforce governance in federal Nepal.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
- Decentralized Management of Home Care Services for Seniors: Protocol for a Participatory Action Research.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- The impact of decentralisation on health systems in fragile and post-conflict countries: a narrative synthesis of six case studies in the Indo-Pacific.Conflict and health · 2023Article
- Using geospatial modelling to estimate the prevalence of adolescent first births in Nepal.BMJ global health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough considerable attention has been paid to the use of quantitative methods in health research, there has been limited focus on decentralisation research using a qualitative-driven mixed method design. Decentralisation presents both a problematic concept and methodological challenges, and is more context-specific and is often multi-dimensional. Researchers often consider using more than one method design when researching phenomena is complex in nature. Aim To explore the effects of decentralisation on the provision of primary healthcare services.
methodsQualitative-driven mixed method design, employing three methods of data collections: focus group discussions (FGDs), semi-structured interviews (SSIs) and participant observations under two components, that is, core component and supplementary components were used. Four FGDs with health service practitioners, three FGDs with district stakeholders, 20 SSIs with health service users and 20 SSIs with national stakeholders were carried out. These were conducted sequentially. NVivo10, a data management program, was utilised to code the field data, employing a content analysis method for searching the underlying themes or concepts in the text material. Findings Both positive and negative experiences related to access, quality, planning, supplies, coordination and supervision were identified.
conclusionThis study suggests some evidence of the effects of decentralisation on health outcomes in general, as well as filling a gap of understanding and examining healthcare through a qualitative-driven mixed methods approach, in particular. Future research in the area of qualitative in-depth understanding of the problems (why decentralisation, why now and what for) would provoke an important data set that benefits the researchers and policy-makers for planning and implementing effective health services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.