ArticlePloS one2022
The missing bit in the middle: Implementation of the Nationals Health Services Standards for Papua New Guinea.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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.
- Baseline assessment of front-line health system capacity in vector-borne disease surveillance and response in Papua New Guinea.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Barriers to and enablers of quality improvement in primary health care in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis case study examined implementation of the National Health Services Standards (NHSSs) as a continuous quality improvement (CQI) process at three church-based health facilities in Papua New Guinea. This process was designed to improve quality of care and accredit the level three health centers to level four as district hospitals to provide a higher level of care. The aims of the paper are to critically examine driving and restraining forces in CQI implementation and analyses how power influences agenda setting for change.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with nine managers and eight health workers as well as three focus group discussions with health workers from three rural church-based health facilities in Morobe and Madang provinces. They included senior, mid-level and frontline managers and medical doctors, health extension officers, nursing officers and community health workers. Thematic analysis was used as an inductive and deductive process in which applied force field analysis, leadership-member exchange (LMX) theory and agenda setting was applied.
resultsQualitative analysis showed how internal and external factors created urgency for change. The CQI process was designed as a collective process. Power relations operated at and between various levels: the facilities, which supported or undermined the change process; between management whereby the national management supported the quality improvement agenda, but the regional management exercised positional power in form of inaction. Theoretical analysis identified the 'missing bit in the middle' shaped by policy actors who exercise power over policy formulation and constrained financial and technical resources. Analysis revealed how to reduce restraining forces and build on driving forces to establish a new equilibrium.
conclusionMultiple theories contributed to the analysis showing how to resolve problematic power relations by building high-quality, effective communication of senior leadership with mid-level management and reactivated broad collaborative processes at the health facilities. Addressing the 'missing bit in the middle' by agenda setting can improve implementation of the NHSSs as a quality improvement process. The paper concludes with learning for policy makers, managers and health workers by highlighting to pay close attention to institutional power dynamics and practices.
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.