Trial reportBMJ open2023
Comparison of patient exit interviews with unannounced standardised patients for assessing HIV service delivery in Zambia: a study nested within a cluster randomised trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Effect of a multicomponent, person-centred care intervention on client experience and HIV treatment outcomes in Zambia: a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial.The lancet. HIV · 2025Trial
- Simulated patient methodology applied in health services research: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Satisfaction with service delivery among HIV treatment clients enrolled in differentiated and conventional models of care in South Africa: a baseline survey.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare unannounced standardised patient approach (eg, mystery clients) with typical exit interviews for assessing patient experiences in HIV care (eg, unfriendly providers, long waiting times). We hypothesise standardised patients would report more negative experiences than typical exit interviews affected by social desirability bias.
settingCross-sectional surveys in 16 government-operated HIV primary care clinics in Lusaka, Zambia providing antiretroviral therapy (ART).
participants3526 participants aged ≥18 years receiving ART participated in the exit surveys between August 2019 and November 2021.
interventionSystematic sample (every n OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared patient experience among patients who received brief training prior to their care visit (explaining each patient experience construct in the exit survey, being anonymous, without manipulating behaviour) with those who did not undergo training on the survey prior to their visit.
resultsAmong 3526 participants who participated in exit surveys, 2415 were untrained (56% female, median age 40 (IQR: 32-47)) and 1111 were trained (50% female, median age 37 (IQR: 31-45)). Compared with untrained, trained patients were more likely to report a negative care experience overall (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) for aggregate sum score: 1.64 (95% CI: 1.39 to 1.94)), with a greater proportion reporting feeling unwelcome by providers (aPR: 1.71 (95% CI: 1.20 to 2.44)) and witnessing providers behaving rude (aPR: 2.28 (95% CI: 1.63 to 3.19)).
conclusionTrained patients were more likely to identify suboptimal care. They may have understood the items solicited better or felt empowered to be more critical. We trained existing patients, unlike studies that use 'standardised patients' drawn from outside the patient population. This low-cost strategy could improve patient-centred service delivery elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Assessment was nested within a parent study; www.pactr.org registered the parent study (PACTR202101847907585).
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.