ReviewGlobal health, science and practice2025
Assessing the Generalizability of Client Experience Measurement Tools in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Narrative Review.
Review in Global health, science and practice, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe experiences of people who interact with a health system form a key component of overall quality of care in that system. Yet, client experience is rarely reflected in how health systems are designed and assessed. To make meaningful progress on delivering high-quality patient-centered care, health systems actors need valid measures of client experience of care. However, no cross-cutting measure of client experience of care exists at present that could facilitate measurement and benchmarking across multiple health service areas.
methodsWe conducted a phased literature search using multiple scholarly databases to identify peer-reviewed articles detailing the development, validation, or adaptation of measures relating to the concept of client experience in sexual and reproductive health care, HIV, primary care, noncommunicable disease management, and health services management and marketing. Measure domains were thematically analyzed and mapped against domains of an existing client experience of care framework-effective communication, respect and dignity, and emotional support.
resultsWe identified 73 articles that met inclusion criteria and that recounted the development, validation, or adaptation of 61 different measures of health care quality and responsiveness. Numerous measures exhibited significant overlap with an existing conceptual framework for client experience, but few measures were used across health areas. DISCUSSION: Content of many of the measures identified in this review mapped closely to domains that appear in an existing framework for client experience of care, including effective communication, respect and dignity, and emotional support. These findings support the notion that developing a generalizable measure of client experience of care could be technically feasible.
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.