ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2022
Best and worst performing health facilities: A positive deviance analysis of perceived drivers of primary care performance in Nepal.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contribution of health system governance in delivering primary health care services for universal health coverage: A scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
- The use of positive deviance approach to improve health service delivery and quality of care: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Using Electronic Health Records Data to Identify Strong Performers in Healthcare Quality Improvement.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2024Article
- Health service quality in 2929 facilities in six low-income and middle-income countries: a positive deviance analysis.The Lancet. Global health · 2023Article
- Article
- Enablers and barriers for climate resilient health systems: Lessons from a qualitative study in Nepal.The journal of climate change and healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Primary care services are on average of low quality in Nepal. However, there is marked variation in performance of basic clinical and managerial functions between primary health care centers. The determinants of variation in primary care performance in low- and middle-income countries have been understudied relative to the prominence of primary care in national health plans. We used the positive deviance approach to identify best and worst performing primary health care centers in Nepal and investigated perceived drivers of best performance. We selected eight primary health care centers in Province 1, Nepal, using an index of basic clinical and operational activities to identify four best and four worst performing primary health care centers. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with managers and clinical staff from each of the eight primary health care centers for a total of 32 interviews. We identified the following factors that distinguished best from worst performers: 1) Managing the facility effectively, 2) engaging local leadership, 3) building active community accountability, 4) assessing and responding to facility performance, 5) developing sources of funding, 6) compensating staff fairly, 7) managing clinical staff performance, and 8) promoting uninterrupted availability of supplies and equipment. These findings can be used to inform quality improvement efforts and health system reforms in Nepal and other similarly under-resourced health systems.
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.