SynthesisBMC primary care2026
Choice of primary healthcare providers among population in urban areas of low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of literature.
Synthesis in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Undergraduate nursing students' knowledge and attitudes towards Primary Health Care.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
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
backgroundStrengthening urban primary healthcare (PHC) systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is essential to effectively serve the growing urban poor. Such reforms should incorporate patient opinions to ensure accessible and affordable services. However, there is limited evidence on patient preferences for PHC providers in these settings. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the evidence on the attributes reported by patients when choosing PHC providers in urban LMICs.
methodsA search was performed across MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus bibliographic databases, as well as grey literature sources, from their earliest entries until March 30, 2024. Studies examining the revealed or stated preferences of populations for PHC providers in urban LMIC settings were included. We descriptively analysed and compared these studies, assessing their methodological quality using checklists for Conjoint Analysis studies and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
resultsOur findings are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. The search yielded 5,089 citations, of which 28 met the eligibility criteria for this review. We identified 203 attributes across selected studies. The most frequently reported attributes were cost of services (n = 25) and distance/proximity (n = 24), followed by provider behaviour/attitude (n = 19) and quality of care (n = 17). Most studies identified the availability of medicine/equipment, distance/proximity, healthcare provider type, and quality of care as the most valued attributes. Eighteen studies examined preference heterogeneity, considering socioeconomic factors such as education, gender, age, severity of illness, and income, with severity of illness being the most significant factor.
conclusionsPrioritising patient preferences in health system reforms is essential for equitable and sustainable healthcare in rapidly urbanising LMICs. Our review highlights the most valued attributes in preference studies, which will help policymakers and researchers tailor better PHC interventions to meet urban community needs and guide future studies on PHC preferences in similar settings.
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.