Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31713608›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2020

The differential impacts of PEPFAR transition on private for-profit, private not-for-profit and publicly owned health facilities in Uganda.

Jess Alan Wilhelm, Ligia Paina, Mary Qiu, Henry Zakumumpa, Sara Bennett

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jess Alan WilhelmDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Ligia PainaDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Mary QiuDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Henry ZakumumpaDepartment of Health Policy and Administration, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Sara BennettDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USMakerere University · UG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While transition of donor programs to national control is increasingly common, there is a lack of evidence about the consequences of transition for private health care providers. In 2015, President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) identified 734 facilities in Uganda for transition from PEPFAR support, including 137 private not-for-profits (PNFP) and 140 private for-profits (PFPs). We sought to understand the differential impacts of transition on facilities with differing ownership statuses. We used a survey conducted in mid-2017 among 145 public, 29 PNFP and 32 PFP facilities reporting transition from PEPFAR. The survey collected information on current and prior PEPFAR support, service provision, laboratory services and staff time allocation. We used both bivariate and logistic regression to analyse the association between ownership and survey responses. All analyses adjust for survey design. Public facilities were more likely to report increased disruption of sputum microscopy tests following transition than PFPs [odds ratio (OR) = 5.85, 1.79-19.23, P = 0.005]. Compared with public facilities, PNFPs were more likely to report declining frequency of supervision for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) since transition (OR = 2.27, 1.136-4.518, P = 0.022). Workers in PFP facilities were more likely to report reduced time spent on HIV care since transition (OR = 6.241, 2.709-14.38, P < 0.001), and PFP facilities were also more likely to discontinue HIV outreach following transition (OR = 3.029, 1.325-6.925; P = 0.011). PNFP facilities' loss of supervision may require that public sector supervision be extended to them. Reduced HIV clinical care in PFPs, primarily HIV testing and counselling, increases burdens on public facilities. Prior PFP clients who preferred the confidentiality and service of private facilities may opt to forgo HIV testing altogether. Donors and governments should consider the roles and responses of PNFPs and PFPs when transitioning donor-funded health programs.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsOwnershipDelivery of Health CareFinancing, GovernmentHealth FacilitiesHumansPrivate SectorPublic SectorUgandadevelopment assistance for healthHIV/AIDSPresident’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Reliefprivate health providerssub-Saharan AfricaUganda

Identifiers

PMID31713608
PMCPMC7050684
OpenAlexW2986323620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.