ArticleBMJ open2026
Impact of quality routine health data utilisation on health service delivery outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based decision-making in healthcare relies heavily on routine health information. However, in many low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), concerns persist regarding the use of quality routine health data for health service delivery. Moreover, no systematic synthesis currently exists on how the use of quality data influences health service delivery in these settings. This systematic review aims to address this gap by consolidating existing evidence on the utilisation of quality routine health data and its impact on health service delivery in LMICs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework for identification, screening and reporting of studies. We will develope our keywords and search strategy using a public involvement approach, generative artificial intelligence (AI) and a combination of keywords and Boolean operators in relevant databases. Studies will be retrieved from CENTRAL, PubMed, Science Citation Index and Scopus. The review will include studies that were published from 2000 to 2025 and that determined the impact of quality routine health data utilisation on health service delivery. It will include both experimental and observational study designs. Two independent authors will screen all titles, abstracts and full-text data. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreements that may arise between the two reviewers. The primary outcome of interest is the impact of the use of quality routine health data on health service delivery. Assessment of risk of bias of all relevant studies will be evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses tool. The narrative synthesis approach and thematic analysis will be employed for the review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No institutional ethics approval will be obtained for this study. However, during the review process, only articles published in peer-reviewed journals/databases will be included in this review. Further, all studies to be included in the review should have obtained ethical approval from relevant institutional review boards. The findings from the systematic review will be disseminated through technical reports, conferences, academic publications, LinkedIn and all relevant platforms available to the researchers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251131622.
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.