ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia2024
Assessment of geographical accessibility to COVID-19 testing facilities in Nepal (2021).
Article in The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The role, challenges, and solutions of laboratories in disaster medicine: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Geographical accessibility of cancer hospital using geospatial technology in Bagmati province, Nepal.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Spatial Distribution of COVID-19 Diagnostic Services in Mopani District, Limpopo Province, South Africa.Public health challenges · 2025Article
- Geographical access to COVID-19 testing centers in India.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Within-laboratory SARS-CoV-2 real time PCR testing operations in Nepal: a simulation-based analysis.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Ensuring equitable physical access to SARS-CoV-2 testing has proven to be crucial for controlling the COVID-19 epidemic, especially in countries like Nepal with its challenging terrain. During the second wave of the pandemic in May 2021, there was immense pressure to expand the laboratory network in Nepal to ensure calibration of epidemic response. The expansion led to an increase in the number of testing facilities from 69 laboratories in May 2021 to 89 laboratories by November 2021. We assessed the equity of physical access to COVID-19 testing facilities in Nepal during 2021. Furthermore, we investigated the potential of mathematical optimisation in improving accessibility to COVID-19 testing facilities. Methods: Based on up-to-date publicly available data sets and on the COVID-19-related daily reports published by Nepal's Ministry of Health and Population from May 1 to November 15, 2021, we measured the disparities in geographical accessibility to COVID-19 testing across Nepal at a resolution of 1 km Findings: The analysis identified vulnerable districts where, despite ramping up efforts, physical accessibility to testing facilities remains low under two modes of travel-walking and motorized driving. Both geographical accessibility and its equality were better under the motorised mode compared with the walking mode. If motorised transportation were available to everyone, the population coverage within 60 min of any testing facility (public and private) would be close to threefold the coverage for pedestrians within the same hour: 61.4% motorised against 22.2% pedestrian access within the hour, considering the whole population of Nepal. Very low accessibility was found in most areas except those with private test centres concentrated in the capital city of Kathmandu. The hypothetical use of mathematical optimisation to select 20 laboratories to add to the original 69 could have improved access from the observed 61.4% offered by the laboratories operating in November to 71.4%, if those 20 could be chosen optimally from all existing healthcare facilities in Nepal. In mountainous terrain, accessibility is very low and could not be improved, even considering all existing healthcare facilities as potential testing locations. Interpretation: The findings related to geographical accessibility to COVID-19 testing facilities should provide valuable information for health-related planning in Nepal, especially in emergencies where data might be limited and decisions time-sensitive. The potential use of publicly available data and mathematical optimisation could be considered in the future. Funding: WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR).
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.