ArticleBMJ open2024
Non-physician anaesthesia providers' perspectives on task sharing practices in Zambia and Somaliland: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-Sectional Survey of Critical Care Provision in Ministry of Health Hospitals in Zambia.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- Access and barriers to safe anesthesia in primary health care settings in India.Bioinformation · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe 68th World Health Assembly, in 2015, called for surgical and anaesthesia services strengthening. Acknowledging the healthcare staff shortages, they referred to task sharing, among others, as a more effective use of the healthcare workforce. While task sharing has been increasingly proposed as an important strategy to increase the reach and safety of anaesthesia as well as a means of supporting the workforce in low-resource settings, most data on task sharing relate to non-anaesthetic healthcare contexts. The aim of this study was to understand anaesthetic task sharing as currently experienced and/or envisaged by non-physician anaesthesia providers in Zambia and Somaliland.
methodsAn exploratory qualitative research methodology was used. Participants were recruited initially via contacts of the research team, then through snowballing using a purposive sampling strategy. There were 13 participants: 7 from Somaliland and 6 from Zambia. Semistructured interviews took place synchronously, then were recorded, anonymised, transcribed and analysed thematically. Triangulation and respondents' validation were used to maximise data validity.
resultsFour major themes were identified in relation to task sharing practices: (1) participants recognised variable components of task sharing in their practice; (2) access to task sharing depends both on sources and resources; (3) implicit barriers may inhibit task sharing practices; (4) there is an appetite among participants for amelioration of current task sharing practices.
conclusionsEmpowering task sharing practices can be achieved only by understanding how these practices work, by identifying gaps and areas of improvement, and by addressing them. The findings from this exploratory study could help the global community understand how anaesthetic task sharing in low-resource settings works and inspire further research on the field. This could inform future modelling of workforce planning strategies in low-resource settings to maximise the effectiveness and professional well-being of the workforce.
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.