Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31657175›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of health policy and management2019

Decentralization and Regionalization of Surgical Care: A Review of Evidence for the Optimal Distribution of Surgical Services in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Katherine R Iverson, Emma Svensson, Kristin Sonderman, Ernest J Barthélemy, Isabelle Citron, Kerry A Vaughan, Brittany L Powell, John G Meara, Mark G Shrime

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of health policy and management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Comparative Study of Cleft Management in Different Economic Settings: United States Versus Guatemala.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Katherine R IversonProgram in Global Surgery and Social Change, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Emma SvenssonProgram in Global Surgery and Social Change, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Kristin SondermanProgram in Global Surgery and Social Change, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ernest J BarthélemyProgram in Global Surgery and Social Change, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Isabelle CitronProgram in Global Surgery and Social Change, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Kerry A VaughanProgram in Global Surgery and Social Change, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Brittany L PowellProgram in Global Surgery and Social Change, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
John G MearaProgram in Global Surgery and Social Change, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Mark G ShrimeProgram in Global Surgery and Social Change, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile recommendations for the optimal distribution of surgical services in high-income countries (HICs) exist, it is unclear how these translate to resource-limited settings. Given the significant shortage and maldistribution of surgical workforce and infrastructure in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the optimal role of decentralization versus regionalization (centralization) of surgical care is unknown. The aim of this study is to review evidence around interventions aimed at redistributing surgical services in LMICs, to guide recommendations for the ideal organization of surgical services.

methodsA narrative-based literature review was conducted to answer this question. Studies published in English between 1997 and 2017 in PubMed, describing interventions to decentralize or regionalize a surgical procedure in a LMIC, were included. Procedures were selected using the Disease Control Priorities' (DCP3) Essential Surgery Package list. Intervention themes and outcomes were analyzed using a narrative, thematic synthesis approach. Primary outcomes included mortality, complications, and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included input measures: workforce and infrastructure, and process measures: facility-based care, surgical volume, and referral rates.

resultsThirty-five studies were included. Nine (33%) of the 27 studies describing decentralization showed an improvement in primary outcomes. The procedures associated with improved outcomes after decentralization included most obstetric, gynecological, and family planning services as well as some minor general surgery procedures. Out of 8 studies on regionalization (centralization), improved outcomes were shown for trauma care in one study and cataract extraction in one study.

conclusionInterventions aimed at decentralizing obstetric care to the district hospital and health center levels have resulted in mortality benefits in several countries. However, more evidence is needed to link service distribution to patient outcomes in order to provide recommendations for the optimal organization of other surgical procedures in LMICs. Considerations for the optimal distribution of surgical procedures should include the acuity of the condition for which the procedure is indicated, anticipated case volume, and required level of technical skills, resources, and infrastructure. These attributes should be considered within the context of each country.

Indexed as

PoliticsDelivery of Health CareDeveloping CountriesGeneral SurgeryHumansRegional Health PlanningCentralizationDecentralizationGlobal SurgeryLow- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)RegionalizationService Delivery

Identifiers

PMID31657175
PMCPMC6815989

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.