ArticleBMJ open2025
Developing emergency care systems in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review to examine the role of leadership and governance.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Management and leadership competencies in Emergency Medicine specialist training: a review with implications for African programmes.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2026Review
- Article
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
backgroundMore knowledge and resources are required to strengthen 'leadership and governance' (L+G) as a central building block to further develop emergency care (EC) systems in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).
objectivesThis scoping review aimed to examine and map the impact of individual, collective or institutional L+G on the development of EC systems (prehospital and facility-based) in LMICs. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language publications from January 2005 to April 2024 that linked any L+G action with the development and capacity of everyday EC in LMICs, specifically excluding disaster responses. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Web of Science (Clarivate), Central (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Global Health (Ovid) and select grey literature. CHARTING
methodsData from all eligible papers were jointly extracted using a piloted tool developed from the literature and WHO's EC Systems Framework. L+G descriptors included level (from clinical to national) and components (informed by Siddiqi
resultsFrom an initial 9713 items, 129 papers were included for final analysis and divided by EC component: prehospital (n=35), facility-based (n=53) and 'whole of EC system' (n=41). Qualitative and descriptive papers were most common, and 72 out of a possible 131 LMICs were represented. Findings were heterogeneous across all building blocks of EC systems and for different components of leadership and/or governance. Cross-cutting L+G themes were identified that demonstrated consistent impact across all EC systems development: government recognition, vision and human rights framing; coalition-building for effective partnerships and trained, empowered EC clinicians demonstrating emotionally intelligent, transformational leadership.
conclusionsApplying new models such as Theories of Change and Social Network Analysis concepts may assist to illuminate how effective L+G is attained, what are the essential components and how these influence EC systems for better patient-centred outcomes. Further understanding the role of L+G for EC systems has utility for future EC clinician leadership training and policy-maker awareness, to strengthen resilience of overall health systems against likely future shocks.
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.