ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Organisational responses to patient complaints in healthcare service delivery in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient complaints reveal gaps in quality, safety and patient-centred care, yet many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) health systems respond inadequately, resulting in dissatisfaction, disengagement and ongoing service problems.
objectivesThis scoping review maps the causes of patient complaints, evaluates existing organisational response mechanisms and policies and identifies gaps in the current evidence.
methodsThe study was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. It focused on the causes of complaints, organisational response mechanisms, existing policies and frameworks, limitations and recommendations identified in the literature. A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, Advanced Google Scholar and other grey literature sources. Study selection and screening were performed using Rayyan software, with two independent reviewers applying predefined eligibility criteria. Data were extracted using a standardised table and the findings were presented through tables, graphs and narrative synthesis. Reporting adhered to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.
resultsThe review includes 37 studies from various regions. These studies found that the main cause of complaint was categorised into five main domains, mainly management, followed by relationship, clinical, environmental, patient rights and others. Moreover, regarding response mechanisms, the review highlights complaint response mechanisms in healthcare that operate across three interlinked levels: national, institutional and frontline care, each with distinct approaches. Furthermore, regarding policy, the review showed that there are a few national-level and institutional-level policies on complaint handling. However, there needs to be greater focus on methodological diversity research in LMIC, as suggested by the literature on limitations and recommendations.
conclusionsThis scoping review identified gaps in evidence on patient complaints, organisational responses and policies, providing a foundation for research on healthcare complaints in LMICs.
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.