ArticleEthiopian journal of health sciences2019
Balancing Overuse and Underuse in the Iranian Healthcare System: A Force Field Theory Analysis.
Article in Ethiopian journal of health sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inclusion of antimicrobial resistance in a pandemic agreement: why it matters and what comes next?Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- Challenges of Hospital Payment Systems in Iran: Results from a Qualitative Study.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2024Article
- Overuse of medications in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2023Article
- Patients' Lived Experiences of the Paternalistic Care Behavior: A Qualitative study.Journal of caring sciences · 2022Article
- HB-HTA as an implementation problem in Polish health policy.PloS one · 2021Article
- Health Transformation Plan Achievements and Outcomes in Iran (2014-2020): A Scoping Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2021Article
- Force field analysis of driving and restraining factors affecting the evidence-based decision-making in health systems; comparing two approaches.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOveruse and underuse of healthcare services occure within population, organizations and even patients around the world. Producing a balance between these two can increase efficiency, service quality and patient satisfaction. It also decrease extra costs. The aim of this study was to identify forces for change and forces against change for generating balance between overuse and underuse to achieve right care.
methodsThis study was conducted in five steps: 1) describe our plan or proposal for change; 2) identify forces for change; 3) identify forces against change; 4) assign forces; and 5) analyze and apply. We used purposive sampling strategy. The number of participants in the expert panel were eight. Each participant signed informed consent form before starting the study (Ethical code: IR.TBZMED.REC.1396.908).
resultsThe driving factors for balancing overuse and underuse were education, preparing clinical guideline and standard protocols, resource allocation, using evidence-based medicine, evidence-based management and evidence-informed policy making approaches and social prescribing. The restraining factors for balancing overuse and underuse were conflict of interest issues, payment systems, paternalism and medicalization, patients and physicians' side problems and culture of consumerism in the community. The total scores for and against change were 14 and 17, respectively.
conclusionIt seems that the emphasis on education and training in this field is essential for physicians, patients and all people in the community. Also, making reforms in payment systems and changing the rules and regulations in this area could be major drivers.
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.