Observational studyBMJ open quality2024
Developing HIV indicators for clinical care quality assessment: relevance and practicality evaluated by healthcare practitioners in South Africa and Democratic Republic of Congo.
Observational study in BMJ open quality, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of quality indicators in healthcare systems is one of the factors that improve the quality of health services. However, indicators for assessing HIV clinical care in the context of low- and middle-income countries are not fully explored. Some existing indicators were established within the context of developed countries and are primarily defined for community care, with limited emphasis on the hospital setting. Additionally, these indicators often do not account for the local practicality and relevance of quality measures in the context of low- and middle-income countries.
aimTo assess the clinical significance and practical applicability of these indicators from the perspective of healthcare professionals specialising in HIV care in South Africa and Democratic Republic of Congo.
methodsAfter performing a systematic review of quality indicators employed in the evaluation of clinical care for individuals with HIV, we conducted an observational, cross-sectional study. In this research, 30 physicians filled out two questionnaires with a core set of indicators, to establish the most pertinent and practically indicators for evaluation of the HIV clinical care. A Likert scale was used to rank the indicators. Kendall's tau-B rank correlation analysis was also performed.
resultsFrom the initial list of 88 quality indicators, 43 were identified as the most relevant and practical in HIV clinical care. Healthcare professionals deemed the monitoring and therapy domain to be the most pertinent and useful indicators out of the seven different clinical domains, followed by the functional organisational structure domain.
conclusionThis instrument may be a tool for healthcare professionals and hospital administrators to improve the quality of HIV clinical care.
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.