Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35304401›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2022

Do private providers give patients what they demand, even if it is inappropriate? A randomised study using unannounced standardised patients in Kenya.

Ada Kwan, Claire E Boone, Giorgia Sulis, Paul J Gertler

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ada KwanDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA ada.kwan@ucsf.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4889-9433
Claire E BooneDivision of Health Policy and Management, University of California Berkeley School of Public Health, Berkeley, California, USA.
Giorgia SulisDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6641-0094
Paul J GertlerUniversity of California Berkeley Haas School of Business, Berkeley, California, USA.
Berkeley Public Health Division · USMcGill University · CAUniversity of California, Berkeley · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLow and varied quality of care has been demonstrated for childhood illnesses in low-income and middle-income countries. Some quality improvement strategies focus on increasing patient engagement; however, evidence suggests that patients demanding medicines can favour the selection of resistant microbial strains in the individual and the community if drugs are inappropriately used. This study examines the effects on quality of care when patients demand different types of inappropriate medicines.

methodsWe conducted an experiment where unannounced standardised patients (SPs), locally recruited individuals trained to simulate a standardised case, present at private clinics. Between 8 March and 28 May 2019, 10 SPs portraying caretakers of a watery diarrhoea childhood case scenario (in absentia) conducted N=200 visits at 200 private, primary care clinics in Kenya. Half of the clinics were randomly assigned to receive an SP demanding amoxicillin (an antibiotic); the other half, an SP demanding albendazole (an antiparasitic drug often used for deworming), with other presenting characteristics the same. We used logistic and linear regression models to assess the effects of demanding these inappropriate medicines on correct and unnecessary case management outcomes.

resultsCompared with 3% among those who did not demand albendazole, the dispensing rate increased significantly to 34% for those who did (adjusted OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22, p<0.0001). Providers did not give different levels of amoxicillin between those demanding it and those not demanding it (adjusted OR 1.73, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.82). Neither significantly changed any correct management outcomes, such as treatment or referral elsewhere.

conclusionPrivate providers appear to account for both business-driven benefits and individual health impacts when making prescribing decisions. Additional research is needed on provider knowledge and perceptions of profit and individual and community health trade-offs when making prescription decisions after patients demand different types of inappropriate medicines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: American Economic Association Registry (#AEARCTR-0000217) and Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (#PACTR201502000770329).

Indexed as

Case ManagementQuality ImprovementChildHumansKenyaReferral and Consultationcommunity child healthhealth economicshealth policyinternational health servicespublic healthquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID35304401
PMCPMC8935168
OpenAlexW4221021274

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.