Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35948934›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2022

Public sector implementation strategies to approach the judicialization of health care: a systematic review protocol.

Sueli Miyuki Yamauti, Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto, Silvio Barberato-Filho, Fernanda Lacerda da Silva Machado, Luciane Cruz Lopes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Sueli Miyuki YamautiGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Science, University of Sorocaba, Rodovia Raposo Tavares, Km 92,5 -, Sorocaba, SP, Brazil.
Jorge Otávio Maia BarretoOswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Silvio Barberato-FilhoGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Science, University of Sorocaba, Rodovia Raposo Tavares, Km 92,5 -, Sorocaba, SP, Brazil.
Fernanda Lacerda da Silva MachadoFederal University of Rio de Janeiro, UFRJ, Macaé, Brazil.
Luciane Cruz LopesGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Science, University of Sorocaba, Rodovia Raposo Tavares, Km 92,5 -, Sorocaba, SP, Brazil. luciane.lopes@prof.uniso.br.ORCID 0000-0002-3684-3275

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe judicialization of health care can be understood as a societal response to pressing healthcare needs, which probably are not being adequately addressed by the current healthcare system. This phenomenon increases the strain on service resources, both in the health sector and in the judiciary system as well, demanding an institutional reorganization to manage judicial actions. It is believed that each institution has developed strategies for coping with the problem in isolation and with little public disclosure. The purpose of this review will be to identify institutional strategies implemented and to investigate their effects in approaching the judicialization of health care.

methodsElectronic searches will be conducted up to December 2021 on 11 databases, supplemented with gray literature and references lists of secondary studies. The descriptor "judicialization of health" will be the basis for conducting the main research. Studies describing any strategy implemented by public institutions to approach the judicialization of health care will be included. Results related to the quality of services provided by the implemented strategy reported in the studies and those that report accessibility, usability, and potential adverse effects or harms caused by the implemented strategy will be investigated. In addition, it will be explored if there have been changes related to the value or characteristics of health litigation. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, abstract data, and full-text papers. The risk of bias in each study will be appraised using a tool suggested by Cochrane Effective Practice and Care Organization Group (EPOC). Subsequently, the reviewers will also extract the data of interest and classify the findings of these studies according to their performance at the institutional level. The results obtained will be described as a narrative synthesis. DISCUSSION: This review may provide evidence on the effects of the strategies implemented to approach the judicialization of health care. It will potentially benefit health care and legal professionals, decision-makers, and researchers by identifying the types and characteristics of strategies that have the potential to improve service delivery in the future. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020160608.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePublic SectorHealth FacilitiesHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicDelivery of health careHealth systemsJudicialization of health careJustice administration systemLawsuits and litigationOrganization and administrationPublic health

Identifiers

PMID35948934
PMCPMC9364593

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.