Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37198596›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2023

Prioritizing rehabilitation in low- and middle-income country national health systems: a qualitative thematic synthesis and development of a policy framework.

Rachel Neill, Yusra Ribhi Shawar, Lamisa Ashraf, Priyanka Das, Sarah N Champagne, Hunied Kautsar, Nukhba Zia, Georgia J Michlig, Abdulgafoor M Bachani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Transforming Community-Based Rehabilitation Services: A National Redesign Using Experience-Based Co-Design.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Rachel NeillJohns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit, Health Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street Suite E8527, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. Rneill3@jhu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1110-5479
Yusra Ribhi ShawarDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Blomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9539-0341
Lamisa AshrafJohns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit, Health Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street Suite E8527, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3042-2728
Priyanka DasJohns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit, Health Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street Suite E8527, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1483-8069
Sarah N ChampagneJohns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit, Health Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street Suite E8527, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7430-5366
Hunied KautsarJohns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit, Health Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street Suite E8527, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7181-8908
Nukhba ZiaJohns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit, Health Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street Suite E8527, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2521-6049
Georgia J MichligJohns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit, Health Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street Suite E8527, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3143-9003
Abdulgafoor M BachaniJohns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit, Health Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street Suite E8527, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4455-9044

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a large and growing unmet need for rehabilitation - a diverse category of services that aim to improve functioning across the life course - particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Yet despite urgent calls to increase political commitment, many low- and middle-income country governments have dedicated little attention to expanding rehabilitation services. Existing policy scholarship explains how and why health issues reach the policy agenda and offers applicable evidence to advance access to physical, medical, psychosocial, and other types of rehabilitation services. Drawing from this scholarship and empirical data on rehabilitation, this paper proposes a policy framework to understand national-level prioritization of rehabilitation in low- and middle-income countries.

methodsWe conducted key informant interviews with rehabilitation stakeholders in 47 countries, complemented by a purposeful review of peer-reviewed and gray literature to achieve thematic saturation. We analyzed the data abductively using a thematic synthesis methodology. Rehabilitation-specific findings were triangulated with policy theory and empirical case studies on the prioritization of other health issues to develop the framework.

resultsThe novel policy framework includes three components which shape the prioritization of rehabilitation on low- and middle-income countries' national government's health agendas. First, rehabilitation lacks a consistent problem definition, undermining the development of consensus-driven solutions which could advance the issue on policy agendas. Second, governance arrangements are fragmented within and across government ministries, between the government and its citizens, and across national and transnational actors engaged in rehabilitation service provision. Third, national legacies - particularly from civil conflict - and weaknesses in the existing health system influences both rehabilitation needs and implementation feasibility.

conclusionsThis framework can support stakeholders in identifying the key components impeding prioritization for rehabilitation across different national contexts. This is a crucial step for ultimately better advancing the issue on national policy agendas and improving equity in access to rehabilitation services.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPolicy MakingGovernmentGovernment ProgramsHumansDisabilityGlobal healthGovernanceHealth policyHealth prioritiesLow- and middle-income countriesPoliticsRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID37198596
PMCPMC10189207

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.