Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37580101›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2023

Evaluating primary care networks in low-income and lower middle-income countries: a scoping review.

Adwoa Agyemang-Benneh, Igor Francetic, Jonathan Hammond, Katherine Checkland

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Adwoa Agyemang-BennehDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK adwoa.agyemang-benneh@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4524-364X
Igor FranceticDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2481-3749
Jonathan HammondDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK.
Katherine ChecklandDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPrimary care networks (PCNs) are claimed to be an effective model to organise and deliver primary healthcare through collaborative relationships and effective coordination of primary care activities. Though increasingly implemented in different contexts, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of PCNs in low-income and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs).

objectiveOur scoping review aims to understand how PCNs in LLMICs have been conceptualised, implemented and analysed in the literature and further explores the evidence of the effectiveness of these networks.

methodsWe structured our review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews and recommendations by Levac

resultsWe identified 20 documents describing PCNs in five LLMICs. The selected documents showed differing forms and complexities of networks, with a majority resourced by government, non-governmental and donor entities. Most networks were mandated, and established with defined goals, although these were not always understood by stakeholders. Unlike PCNs in developed settings, the scoping review did not identify integration of care as a major goal for the establishment of PCNs in LLMICs. Network evaluation relationships, outputs and outcomes also varied across the five networks in the identified documents, and perceptions of effectiveness differed across stakeholder groups.

conclusionPCNs in LLMICs benefit from clearly stated goals and measurable outcomes, which facilitates evaluation. In order to maximise the benefits, careful attention to the aspects of network design and operation is required. Future research work could shed light on some of the missing pieces of evidence on their effectiveness by, for example, considering differential consequences of modes of network establishment and operation, including unintended consequences in the systems within which they reside, and evaluating long-term implications.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesPovertyGovernmentHealth ResourcesHumansPrimary Health CareHealth systems evaluationPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID37580101
PMCPMC10432626

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.