ArticleGlobal health action2021
Information asymmetry in the Kenyan medical laboratory sector.
Article in Global health action, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A laboratory-focussed desk review of health systems in Uganda, Kenya, and the UK to respond to current and future pandemics.Journal of global health · 2025Review
- Geo-mapping of government healthcare facilities providing diagnostic laboratory services in Delhi, India: a pilot study.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Evaluating the gap in rapid diagnostic testing: insights from subnational Kenyan routine health data.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Influence of E-consultation on the Intention of First-Visit Patients to Select Medical Services: Results of a Scenario Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Article
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 at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImportant information about medical laboratory providers is not readily available to all patients, clinicians nor regulators in Kenya. This study was conducted as part of a wider project aiming to improve access to high quality diagnostics by addressing information asymmetries in the Kenyan market for laboratory services.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to: 1) Gather pricing information for 49 common laboratory tests from medical laboratories in Nairobi, Kenya, noting where these prices were publicly available or withheld. 2) Assess patients' knowledge of testing information including: turnaround time, price, and test availability.
methodThis was a cross-sectional study where a mystery caller approach was used to survey 49 tests for turnaround time, price, and availability across 13 laboratories selected purposively. The mystery shopper survey was complemented by 251 patient exit interviews at two Kenyan hospitals to understand whether patients seeking laboratory tests in Nairobi had access to such information. All 251 patients were selected by convenience sampling.
resultsWe noted that 85% of the private laboratories did not disclose test prices and turnaround times to their patients. There was a wide range of prices on several key tests, with private in-facility laboratories charging an average test price of 468% of the average test price in public laboratories across all the 49 tests. We also found that many patients lacked key information regarding the tests they needed: 65% did not know the purpose of the test while 41% did not know the test price at all.
conclusionUnder the current system, patients have limited access to information regarding the key criteria required to make a rational decision. This has a significant impact on the quality, price, and turnaround time (TAT) offered by the medical laboratories that operate in this dysfunctional market.
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.