ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Choice of primary healthcare providers among population in urban areas of low- and middle-income countries-a protocol for systematic review of literature.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStrengthening and reforming the urban primary healthcare (PHC) system is essential to efficiently deliver need-based healthcare services to the rapidly increasing urban poor population. Such reforms of PHC system need to emphasize the opinion of patients in co-designing services in order that delivery of services can be accessed effectively by the urban population in a timely and low-cost way. Hence, it is important to identify the preference of urban population while choosing healthcare providers. The aim of this proposed protocol is to summarize a planned systematic review of existing evidence on the attributes considered for choosing PHC providers in urban settings of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as classified by the World Bank. METHODS AND ANALYSES: An inclusive literature search will be conducted in electronic databases including Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. Databases will be searched from the earliest date of entry until March 30, 2024. Database search will be supplemented by manual search of citations, reference lists, and grey literature sources. Following the pre-set inclusion and exclusion criterion, two researchers will independently screen all the retrieved studies in Covidence. Any discrepancies will be resolved through a discussion between two researchers, and if disagreements persist, a third reviewer will be consulted. The methodological quality of included studies will be appraised using checklist for Conjoint Analysis studies and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). An Excel-based data extraction table will be developed, piloted, and refined during the review process. Preference attributes will be identified and analyzed according to their types. The systematic review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. DISCUSSION: The identification of attributes, their influence on preference, and heterogeneity with socioeconomic characteristics of the population will help the policymakers and researchers to design targeted PHC interventions. Such evidence will be also useful to design choice experiment studies to quantify the preferred attributes of PHC providers in urban context of LMICs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023409720.
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.