ArticlePloS one2024
Identifying and prioritising barriers to injury care in Northern Malawi, results of a multifacility multidisciplinary health facility staff survey.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Understanding Barriers to Effective Injury Care by Medical Trainees and Traffic Law Enforcement First Responders in Low-Income Contexts in Uganda (Motor Registry Project Part 2): Convergent Mixed Methods Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Financing of Trauma and Burn Prevention and Care in Malawi: A Scoping Review.Health science reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe burden of injuries globally and in Malawi is substantial. Optimising both access to, and quality of, care in health systems requires attention. We aimed to establish how health facility staff in Karonga, Malawi, perceive barriers to seeking (delay 1), reaching (delay 2) and receiving (delay 3) injury care.
methodWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of health facility staff who treat patients with injuries in all health facilities serving the Karonga Demographic Surveillance Site population. The primary outcome was participant perceptions of the importance of delays 1 to 3 following injury. Secondary outcomes were the barriers within each of these delays considered most important and which were considered the most important across all delays stages.
results228 staff completed the survey: 36.8% (84/228) were female and 61.4% (140/228) reported being involved in caring for an injured person at least weekly. Delay 3 was most frequently considered the most important delay 35.1% (80/228), with 19.3% (44/228) and 16.6% (38/228) reporting delays 1 and 2 as the most important respectively; 28.9% (66/228) of respondents either did not know or answer. For delay 1 the barrier, "the perceived financial costs associated with seeking care are too great", was considered most important. For delay 2, the barrier "lack of timely affordable emergency transport (formal or informal)" was considered most important. For delay 3, the barrier, "lack of reliably available necessary physical resources (infrastructure, equipment and consumable material)" was considered most important. When considering the most important overall barrier across all delays, the delay 3 barrier, "lack of reliably available necessary physical resources" received the most nominations (41.7% [95/228]).
conclusionsGiven the awareness of health facility staff of the issues facing their patients, these findings should assist in informing health system planning.
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.