ArticleBMC health services research2025
Accessing medical records for research in South African public hospitals: a reflective narrative.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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
backgroundAccess to medical data is important for health system research in South Africa. Researchers must obtain authorization from gatekeepers to enter hospitals and access medical records. They engage with street-level bureaucrats to retrieve specific records and extract necessary data. This paper reflects on our experiences accessing patient records in a nationally representative sample of 60 public hospitals in South Africa.
methodsWe chose narrative inquiry to deeply explore researchers' experiences accessing medical records in South African public hospitals. This qualitative method focuses on individuals' stories and personal experiences, providing rich, detailed insights into complex, context-dependent phenomena. Field reports documented our reflections and experiences during each hospital visit. Additionally, we conducted debriefing sessions to further explore these experiences. The themes that emerged from the field reports and debriefing sessions prompted us to delve deeper into the research process. To explore these themes, we conducted a focus group discussion (FGD) with all researchers. The FGD transcript and field reports were analyzed using MAXQDA. We adopted Gibbs's reflective model, incorporating structured debriefing steps, to present our findings.
resultsOur reflections highlight the challenges encountered during the ethical review process, engagements with numerous gatekeepers, and street-level bureaucracy. The ethics review process experienced significant delays. Obtaining permission from various gatekeepers was arduous and complex, often presenting logistical challenges. We had both positive and negative experiences with the street-level bureaucrats, including hospital staff responsible for creating, curating, and safeguarding medical records. Some exhibited resistance that appeared to stem from their frustrations with superiors. Public hospital records were mostly poorly curated.
conclusionEthical review is essential for guiding complex research like access to abortion. However, an overcautious approach might impede needed research with vulnerable populations. Researchers need to be up to date with local processes and have sufficient resources to gain gatekeepers' permission to access public hospitals. Understanding street-level bureaucracy is imperative for researchers who need to interact with various hospital personnel to access medical records. The state of record-keeping in South African public hospitals may reflect the overall state of the health system, including examples of excellence and mediocrity.
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.