SynthesisBMJ global health2020
How primary healthcare workers obtain information during consultations to aid safe prescribing in low-income and lower middle-income countries: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of the use of e-learning and e-consultation for healthcare workers in low- and middle-income countries and their potential complementarity.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Improving Access to Antimicrobial Prescribing Guidelines in 4 African Countries: Development and Pilot Implementation of an App and Cross-Sectional Assessment of Attitudes and Behaviour Survey of Healthcare Workers and Patients.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We systematically reviewed the evidence on how primary healthcare workers obtain information during consultations to support decision-making for prescribing in low and lower middle-income countries. Methods: We searched electronic databases, consulted the Healthcare Information For All network, hand searched reference lists, ran citation searches of included studies and emailed authors of identified papers. Two reviewers extracted data and appraised quality with relevant tools. Results: Of 60 497 records found, 23 studies met our inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies were observational and nine were interventional. Frequently mentioned sources of information were books, leaflets, guidelines, aids and the internet. These sources were sometimes out of date and health workers reported being confused which to use. Internet access varied and even when it was available, use was limited by technical issues. Of the five electronic tools that were assessed, four had positive outcomes. Tools assisted prescribers with medicine selection and dosage calculations, which increased prescribing accuracy. The quality of reporting varied but was overall low. Discussion: Studies indicated a lack of up-to-date and relevant medicine information in low and lower middle-income settings. Internet-based sources appeared to be useful when it is possible to download content for offline use and to update when there is internet access. Electronic tools showed promise, but their accuracy needs to be validated and they should focus on giving actionable advice to guide prescribers. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018091088.
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.