ArticleBMJ open2021
Protocol for a scoping review of implementation research approaches to universal health coverage in Africa.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. 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.
- Article
- Implementation research approaches to promoting universal health coverage in Africa: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionImplementation research has emerged as part of evidence-based decision-making efforts to plug current gaps in the translation of research evidence into health policy and practice. While there has been a growing number of institutions and initiatives promoting the uptake of implementation research in Africa, their role and effectiveness remain unclear, particularly in the context of universal health coverage (UHC). This review aims to extensively identify and characterise the nature, facilitators and barriers to the use of implementation research for assessing or evaluating UHC-related interventions or programmes in Africa. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be developed based on the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and enhanced by the Joanna Briggs Institute. It will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A comprehensive search of the following electronic databases will be conducted: Medline (via PubMed), Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Relevant grey literature and reference lists will also be searched. All publications describing the application of implementation research in the context of UHC will be considered for inclusion. Findings will be narratively synthesised and analysed using a predefined conceptual framework. Where applicable, quantitative evidence will be aggregated using summary statistics. There will be consultation of stakeholders, including UHC-oriented health professionals, programme managers, implementation researchers and policy-makers; to provide methodological, conceptual and practical insights. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The data used in this review will be sourced from publicly available literature; hence, this study will not require ethical approval. Findings and recommendations will be disseminated to reach a diverse audience, including UHC advocates, implementation researchers and key health system stakeholders within the African region. Additionally, findings will be disseminated through an open-access publication in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.
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.