Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33509149›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2021

Addressing the quality of paediatric primary care: health worker and caregiver perspectives from a process evaluation of PACK child, a health systems intervention in South Africa.

Robyn Curran, Jamie Murdoch, Max Bachmann, Eric Bateman, Ruth Cornick, Sandra Picken, Makhosazana Lungile Simelane, Lara Fairall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Robyn CurranKnowledge Translation Unit, University of Cape Town Lung Institute, George Street, Observatory, Cape Town, Western Cape, 7925, South Africa. robyn.curran@uct.ac.za.ORCID 0000-0003-1337-0011
Jamie MurdochSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Max BachmannNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Eric BatemanKnowledge Translation Unit, University of Cape Town Lung Institute, George Street, Observatory, Cape Town, Western Cape, 7925, South Africa.
Ruth CornickKnowledge Translation Unit, University of Cape Town Lung Institute, George Street, Observatory, Cape Town, Western Cape, 7925, South Africa.
Sandra PickenKnowledge Translation Unit, University of Cape Town Lung Institute, George Street, Observatory, Cape Town, Western Cape, 7925, South Africa.
Makhosazana Lungile SimelaneKnowledge Translation Unit, University of Cape Town Lung Institute, George Street, Observatory, Cape Town, Western Cape, 7925, South Africa.
Lara FairallKnowledge Translation Unit, University of Cape Town Lung Institute, George Street, Observatory, Cape Town, Western Cape, 7925, South Africa.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R004080/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe WHO's Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) has resulted in progress in addressing infant and child mortality. However, unmet needs of children continue to present a burden upon primary healthcare services. The capacity of services and quality of care offered require greater support to address these needs by extending and integrating curative and preventive care for the child with a long-term health condition and the child older than 5, not prioritised in IMCI. In response to these needs, the PACK Child intervention was developed and piloted in October 2017-February 2019 in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. We report health worker and caregiver perspectives of the existing paediatric primary care context as well as the extent to which PACK Child functions to address perceived problems within the current local healthcare system.

methodsThis process evaluation involved 52 individual interviews with caregivers, 10 focus group discussions with health workers, 3 individual interviews with trainers, and 31 training observations. Interviews and focus groups explored participants' experiences of paediatric primary care, perspectives of the PACK Child intervention, and tensions with implementation in each context. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse verbatim interview and discussion transcripts.

resultsPerspectives of caregivers and health workers suggest an institutionalised focus of paediatric primary care to treating children's symptoms as acute episodic conditions. Health workers' reports imply that this focus is perpetuated by interactions between contextual features such as, IMCI policy, documentation-driven consultations, overcrowded clinics and verticalised care. Whilst these contextual conditions constrained health workers' ability to translate skills developed within PACK Child training into practice, the intervention initiated expanded care of children 0-13 years and those with long-term health conditions, enhanced professional competence, improved teamwork and referrals, streamlined triaging, and facilitated probing for psychosocial risk.

conclusionPACK Child appears to be catalysing paediatric primary care to address the broader needs of children, including long-term health conditions and the identification of psychosocial problems. However, to maximise this requires primary care to re-orientate from risk minimisation on the day of attendance towards a view of the child beyond the day of presentation at clinics.

Indexed as

CaregiversDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedChildFamilyHealth PersonnelHumansInfantPrimary Health CareSouth AfricaEducational outreachHealth systems strengtheningIMCIPACKPaediatric primary careProcess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID33509149
PMCPMC7842050

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.