ArticleBMC health services research2025
Revisiting the use and effectiveness of patient-held records in rural Malawi.
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth Passports (HPs) are paper-based, patient-held records used in Malawi to document key details about the health condition of a patient and the care provided during medical visits.
aimThis paper assessed their use and effectiveness within the health data ecosystem, and their potential impact on patient care.
settingThe study setting was health facilities under the District Health Office in the Zomba District, Malawi.
methodsWe undertook a qualitative study to determine the practices for data recording used by health care professionals and the importance placed on HPs by patients and professionals. We conducted an in-depth Focus Group Discussion with healthcare practitioners. Pages from completed HPs were analysed to extract practices for recording case presentation, diagnosis, and medication.
resultsHPs were perceived to be beneficial to healthcare professionals as a means of transmitting information and communicate to each other the patient record history and treatment. Patients saw HPs solely as means of accessing services rather than as sources of personal health information with intrinsic value to them. Practices in recording patient notes varied considerably and we found many instances of illegible handwriting, and the use of abbreviations and shorthand that could be interpreted differently by clinicians and were not understood by patients. Language and communication barriers, low patient literacy and a general lack of privacy during consultations also had a significant negative effect on the use and effectiveness of HPs.
conclusionThere are significant gaps between the intended use and effectiveness of HPs in a clinical setting and the actual use by healthcare professionals and patients. Efforts to make sure that HPs can effectively fulfil the primary purpose of medical records are long overdue. CONTRIBUTION: This study contributes to an under-researched area for understanding the use and effectiveness of patient-held records in LMICs.
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.