SynthesisBMJ open2022
Narrative synthesis systematic review of Pakistani women's health outcomes from primary care interventions.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWomen living in Pakistan have complex health problems including infectious and non-communicable diseases, accident and injuries, and mental health problems. While a majority of these women rely on primary healthcare services for all of their healthcare needs, there has to date been no overview of the extent of their effectiveness. The objective of this review was to (1) synthesise the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of primary care based interventions aimed at improving women's mental and physical health and (2) identify the factors that promote effectiveness for women's health outcomes.
methodsFive academic databases were searched, including PubMed, BMC Medicine, Medline, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. A search was also made of the grey literature. The quality of included studies was assessed using a standardised critical appraisal tool, and the findings summarised using a narrative synthesis.
resultsIn total, 18 studies were included in the review. Eight involved evaluations of counselling interventions, three health education and awareness interventions, two social and psychosocial interventions, and five were evaluations of combination interventions. Twelve of the included studies were randomised controlled trials. Of these 14 reported significant outcomes, and 4 further interventions showed partially favourable results. However, interventions mostly targeted women's mental or reproductive health.
conclusionsWhile the evidence is limited in terms of quality and what has been evaluated, a number of interventions appear to be effective in improving outcomes for women. The three key approaches include the adoption of an active door-to-door and group-based approach; utilisation of community peers who can deliver care cost-effectively and who are more accepted in the community; and the integration of financial vouchers to support uptake in poor populations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020203472.
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.