Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31565413›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2019

Use of standardised patients for healthcare quality research in low- and middle-income countries.

Ada Kwan, Benjamin Daniels, Sofi Bergkvist, Veena Das, Madhukar Pai, Jishnu Das

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Ada KwanSchool of Public Health, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.
Benjamin DanielsMcCourt School of Public Policy and School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Sofi BergkvistACCESS Health International, New York City, New York, USA.
Veena DasDepartment of Anthropology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Madhukar PaiDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, and McGill International TB Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3667-4536
Jishnu DasMcCourt School of Public Policy and School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5909-3585

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of standardised patients (SPs)-people recruited from the local community to present the same case to multiple providers in a blinded fashion-is increasingly used to measure the quality of care in low-income and middle-income countries. Encouraged by the growing interest in the SP method, and based on our experience of conducting SP studies, we present a conceptual framework for research designs and surveys that use this methodology. We accompany the conceptual framework with specific examples, drawn from our experience with SP studies in low-income and middle-income contexts, including China, India, Kenya and South Africa, to highlight the versatility of the method and illustrate the ongoing challenges. A toolkit and manual for implementing SP studies is included as a companion piece in the online supplement.

Indexed as

health care providersquality of carestandardized patients

Identifiers

PMID31565413
PMCPMC6747906

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.