Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36898760›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Rapid methods for identifying barriers and solutions to improve access to community health services: a scoping review protocol.

Luke Nelson Allen, Hagar Azab, Ronald Jonga, Iris Gordon, Sarah Karanja, Jennifer Evans, Nam Thaker, Jacqueline Ramke, Andrew Bastawrous

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Luke Nelson AllenDepartment for Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK drlukeallen@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2750-3575
Hagar AzabDepartment for Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Ronald JongaDepartment for Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Iris GordonDepartment for Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Sarah KaranjaKEMRI, Nairobi, Kenya.
Jennifer EvansDepartment for Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Nam ThakerDepartment for Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Jacqueline RamkeDepartment for Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5764-1306
Andrew BastawrousDepartment for Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome 215633/Z/19/ZWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLow attendance rates for community health services reflect important barriers that prevent people from receiving the care they need. Services and health systems that seek to advance Universal Health Coverage need to understand and act on these factors. Formal qualitative research is the best way to elicit barriers and identify potential solutions, however traditional approaches take months to complete and can be very expensive. We aim to map the methods that have been used to rapidly elicit barriers to accessing community health services and identify potential solutions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Global Health for empirical studies that use rapid methods (<14 days) to elicit barriers and potential solutions from intended service beneficiaries. We will exclude hospital-based and 100% remotely delivered services. We will include studies conducted in any country from 1978 to present. We will not limit by language. Two reviewers will independently perform screening and data extraction, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We will tabulate the different approaches used and present data on time, skills and financial requirements for each approach, as well as the governance framework and any strengths and weaknesses presented by the study authors. We will follow Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review guidance and report the review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. We will share our findings in the peer-reviewed literature, at conferences, and with WHO policymakers working in this space. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/a6r2m).

Indexed as

LanguageResearch DesignCommunity Health ServicesDissent and DisputesHumansQualitative ResearchScoping Reviews as Topichealth policyhealth services accessibilityqualitative researchstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID36898760
PMCPMC10008441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read3
identifiers read2
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.