Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34099482›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2021

Optimising geographical accessibility to primary health care: a geospatial analysis of community health posts and community health workers in Niger.

Nicholas Paul Oliphant, Nicolas Ray, Khaled Bensaid, Adama Ouedraogo, Asma Yaroh Gali, Oumarou Habi, Ibrahim Maazou, Rocco Panciera, Maria Muñiz, Zeynabou Sy and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Successes, weaknesses, and recommendations to strengthen primary health care: a scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Spatial Accessibility Analysis of Medical Facilities Based on Public Transportation Networks.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors.

Nicholas Paul OliphantSchool of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa npoliphant@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8519-354X
Nicolas RayGeoHealth Group, Institute of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4696-5313
Khaled BensaidUNICEF Niger, Niamey, Niger.
Adama OuedraogoUNICEF Niger, Niamey, Niger.
Asma Yaroh GaliPathfinder International, Niamey, Niger.
Oumarou HabiInspection of Statistical Services, National Institute of Statistics, Niamey, Niger.
Ibrahim MaazouDirectorate of Surveys and Censuses (former), National Institute of Statistics, Niamey, Niger.
Rocco PancieraHealth Section, UNICEF Headquarters, New York, New York, USA.
Maria MuñizEastern and Southern Africa Regional Office, UNICEF, Nairobi, Kenya.
Zeynabou SyGeoHealth Group, Institute of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Samuel MandaBiostatistics Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.
Debra JacksonSchool of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-3307-632X
Tanya DohertySchool of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-1592-0080

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about the contribution of community health posts and community health workers (CHWs) to geographical accessibility of primary healthcare (PHC) services at community level and strategies for optimising geographical accessibility to these services.

methodsUsing a complete georeferenced census of community health posts and CHWs in Niger and other high-resolution spatial datasets, we modelled travel times to community health posts and CHWs between 2000 and 2013, accounting for training, commodities and maximum population capacity. We estimated additional CHWs needed to optimise geographical accessibility of the population beyond the reach of the existing community health post network. We assessed the efficiency of geographical targeting of the existing community health post network compared with networks designed to optimise geographical targeting of the estimated population, under-5 deaths and

resultsThe per cent of the population within 60-minute walking to the nearest community health post with a CHW increased from 0.0% to 17.5% between 2000 and 2013. An estimated 10.4 million people (58.5%) remained beyond a 60-minute catchment of community health posts. Optimal deployment of 7741 additional CHWs could increase geographical coverage from 41.5% to 82.9%. Geographical targeting of the existing community health post network was inefficient but optimised networks could improve efficiency by 32.3%-47.1%, depending on targeting metric. INTERPRETATIONS: We provide the first estimates of geographical accessibility to community health posts and CHWs at national scale in Niger, highlighting improvements between 2000 and 2013, geographies where gaps remained and approaches for optimising geographical accessibility to PHC services at community level.

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersPublic HealthHumansNigerPrimary Health Carechild healthgeographic information systemshealth services researchhealth systemsmalaria

Identifiers

PMID34099482
PMCPMC8186743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.