Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30200964›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2018

Meeting need vs. sharing the market: a systematic review of methods to measure the use of private sector family planning and childbirth services in sub-Saharan Africa.

Mardieh L Dennis, Lenka Benova, Onikepe O Owolabi, Oona M R Campbell

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Obstetric Violence in Spain (Part II): Interventionism and Medicalization during Birth.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  11. 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.

Mardieh L DennisFaculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. mardieh.dennis@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4152-4604
Lenka BenovaFaculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Onikepe O OwolabiGuttmacher Institute, 125 Maiden Lane 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10038, USA.
Oona M R CampbellFaculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnsuring universal access to maternal and reproductive health services is critical to the success of global efforts to reduce poverty and inequality. Engaging private providers has been proposed as a strategy for increasing access to healthcare in low- and middle-income countries; however, little consensus exists on how to estimate the extent of private sector use. Using research from sub-Saharan Africa, this study systematically compares and critiques quantitative measures of private sector family planning and childbirth service use and synthesizes evidence on the role of the private sector in the region.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of the Medline, Global Health, and Popline databases. All studies that estimated use of private sector of family planning or childbirth services in one or more sub-Saharan African countries were included in this review. For each study, we extracted data on the key study outcomes and information on the methods used to estimate private sector use.

resultsFifty-three papers met our inclusion criteria; 31 provided outcomes on family planning, and 26 provided childbirth service outcomes. We found substantial methodological variation between studies; for instance, while some reported on service use from any private sector source, others distinguished private sector providers either by their profit orientation or position within or outside the formal medical sector. Additionally, studies measured the use of private sector services differently, with some estimating the proportion of need met by the private sector and others examining the sector's share among the market of service users. Overall, the estimates suggest that the private sector makes up a considerable portion (> 20%) of the market for family planning and childbirth care, but its role in meeting women's need for these services is fairly low (< 10%).

conclusionsMany studies have examined the extent of private sector family planning and childbirth service provision; however, inconsistent methodologies make it difficult to compare results across studies and contexts. Policymakers should consider the implications of both private market share and coverage estimates, and be cautious in interpreting data on the scale of private sector health service provision without a clear understanding of the methodology.

Indexed as

Africa South of the SaharaDelivery, ObstetricDelivery of Health CareDeveloping CountriesFamily Planning ServicesFemaleGlobal HealthHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansIncomePovertyPregnancyPrivate SectorSocioeconomic FactorsAfricaFamily planningMaternal healthPrivate sectorSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30200964
PMCPMC6131793

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.