ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2025
Reaching the unreachable: a mixed-method evaluation of multidimensional healthcare model addressing the healthcare service gaps in hard-to-reach Northern riverine Bangladesh.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2025. 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.
- Smart assistive technologies for neurodisorders: A review on AI, IoT, and wearable systems for enhanced patient care.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Seeking support: insights into women's mental health help-seeking behavior in Bangladesh.Frontiers in global women's health · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHard-to-reach riverine communities of northern Bangladesh face unique challenges in healthcare services. Friendship, an international social purpose organization, implemented a 3-tier healthcare model addressing these unique challenges over the past 20 years. This study evaluated Friendship's 3-tier healthcare model in the northern riverine area, assessing service-seeking practices, experiences, stakeholders' perceptions, and cost benefits for beneficiaries.
methodsA concurrent mixed-method approach was employed, including desk reviews, a cross-sectional quantitative survey, facility mapping, and qualitative interviews with service recipients, community representatives, healthcare providers, and health managers. Data were collected from five hard-to-reach riverine sub-districts across the Kurigram, Gaibandha, Bogura, Sirajganj, and Jamalpur districts of Bangladesh between April 2022 and July 2023. Data analysis followed major thematic domains for a comprehensive and complementary understanding.
resultsA significant proportion (43.0%) of survey participants had no formal education, were aged 18-35 (57.5%), and earned less than 1,620 USD yearly (66.6%). Friendship's healthcare services at the doorstep through satellite clinics and Female Community Medic Aides were widely accepted and preferred within the community for convenience, affordability (0.05-0.09 USD service charges), and superior quality, particularly the specialized treatments available on the hospital ships.
conclusionFriendship's 3-tier healthcare model made the accessibility and affordability of primary healthcare. Upon implementing a robust referral mechanism, continuing collaboration with the Government of Bangladesh, and expanding community awareness sessions to include topics such as mental health and disaster response, this model has the potential to be effective in similar settings in Bangladesh and other developing countries, as well as during emergency responses.
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.