ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Health systems responsiveness in low and middle-income countries (L&MICs): revisiting its scope.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth systems responsiveness (HSR) addresses the legitimate non-health expectations of the population and plays a vital role in strengthening health systems and enhancing population health. Identifying specific constructs or domains within HSR is particularly important in the context of low and middle-income countries (L&MICs) to facilitate targeted improvement. Following a comprehensive systematic review of the literature, we developed a conceptual framework for HSR. This study was designed to validate our proposed framework through a Delphi process.
methodsGlobal HSR experts were contacted via email to participate in the study, and a copy of the proposed framework (12 domains, 53 subdomains) was shared with them. Participants were asked to rate each subdomain on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest score; based on scientific strength, relevance and feasibility. They also provided suggestions to merge, omit or add domains and subdomains. A subdomain was retained if it received a rating of 4 or 5 from at least 70% of participants for scientific strength and relevance, and 50% or more for feasibility. The final version of the framework was shared with all participants for approval.
resultsThirteen global health experts participated in the Delphi process. Final version of the HSR framework consisted of 10 domains: respect for dignity, autonomy and confidentiality of information; quality of basic amenities; access to social support networks during care; choice of provider; prompt access to care; attention, clarity of communication and guidance; consideration of financial protection; coordination and continuity of care and 31 subdomains. The overall Cronbach's alpha values were 0.94, 0.93 and 0.96 for the categories of scientific strength, relevance and feasibility of assessment, respectively, indicating very high internal consistency among the Delphi participants.
conclusionWe recommend using this framework to elaborate on HSR across L&MICs, after pretesting within specific contexts.
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.