Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34006598›Full record

SynthesisBMJ quality & safety2022

How does the effectiveness of strategies to improve healthcare provider practices in low-income and middle-income countries change after implementation? Secondary analysis of a systematic review.

Catherine Arsenault, Samantha Y Rowe, Dennis Ross-Degnan, David H Peters, Sanam Roder-DeWan, Margaret E Kruk, Alexander K Rowe

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ quality & safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

Catherine ArsenaultDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA carsenault@hsph.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2410-3015
Samantha Y RoweCDC Foundation, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3729-579X
Dennis Ross-DegnanHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0066-1242
David H PetersDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8377-3444
Sanam Roder-DeWanDepartment of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania.ORCID 0000-0003-0114-2505
Margaret E KrukDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9549-8432
Alexander K RoweMalaria Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1383-4341

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA recent systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of strategies to improve healthcare provider (HCP) performance in low-income and middle-income countries. The review identified strategies with varying effects, including in-service training, supervision and group problem-solving. However, whether their effectiveness changed over time remained unclear. In particular, understanding whether effects decay over time is crucial to improve sustainability.

methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of data from the aforementioned review to explore associations between time and effectiveness. We calculated effect sizes (defined as percentage-point (%-point) changes) for HCP practice outcomes (eg, percentage of patients correctly treated) at each follow-up time point after the strategy was implemented. We estimated the association between time and effectiveness using random-intercept linear regression models with time-specific effect sizes clustered within studies and adjusted for baseline performance.

resultsThe primary analysis included 37 studies, and a sensitivity analysis included 77 additional studies. For training, every additional month of follow-up was associated with a 0.19 %-point decrease in effectiveness (95% CI: -0.36 to -0.03). For training combined with supervision, every additional month was associated with a 0.40 %-point decrease in effectiveness (95% CI: -0.68 to -0.12). Time trend results for supervision were inconclusive. For group problem-solving alone, time was positively associated with effectiveness, with a 0.50 %-point increase in effect per month (95% CI: 0.37 to 0.64). Group problem-solving combined with training was associated with large improvements, and its effect was not associated with time.

conclusionsTime trends in the effectiveness of different strategies to improve HCP practices vary among strategies. Programmes relying solely on in-service training might need periodical refresher training or, better still, consider combining training with group problem-solving. Although more high-quality research is needed, these results, which are important for decision-makers as they choose which strategies to use, underscore the utility of studies with multiple post-implementation measurements so sustainability of the impact on HCP practices can be assessed.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesPovertyHealth PersonnelHumansIncomehealth services researchimplementation scienceperformance measuresquality improvementstandards of care

Identifiers

PMID34006598
PMCPMC8784997

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.