ArticleBMJ global health2026
'A race against time': a photovoice study on priorities for quality of injury care with patients, health workers and policymakers in four low- and middle-income countries.
Article in BMJ global health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Lancet Commission on High Quality Health Systems called for quality measures grounded in user experience. Studies of how stakeholders interpret and prioritise these frameworks are rare for injury care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
objectivesThe objective was to identify how patients, healthcare providers and policymakers in four LMICs prioritise quality of care after injury using Institute of Medicine (IoM) quality domains (safety, effectiveness, patient-centredness, timeliness and equity).
methodsWe conducted a Photovoice study across eight urban and rural sites in Ghana, Pakistan, Rwanda and South Africa. Focus group discussions (n=39) convened patients/community members, healthcare providers and policymakers (n=116), supplemented by policymaker interviews (n=6). Participants photographed aspects of injury care, developed captions and used deliberative dialogue to rank these against the IoM domains.
resultsStakeholders prioritised timeliness, safety and effectiveness, with rankings varying by local system capability. In settings with significant trauma system gaps (Ghana, Pakistan), timeliness ranked highest: immediate survival, getting to care quickly across transport, referral and facility processes. Safety was also emphasised: avoiding additional harm from unsafe and unreliable environments and resources. In settings with more established access to basic emergency care (Rwanda, South Africa), priorities shifted towards effectiveness, understood in terms of clinical, functional and psychosocial recovery. Across all contexts, equity (fair access and financial protection) was interpreted as foundational rather than as a discrete domain, shaping delays, access, treatment continuity and catastrophic costs. Overall, quality was considered cumulative and relational: early failures in care pathways amplified avoidable downstream complications including disability and impoverishment.
conclusionsStakeholders shared systems understandings of injury care quality, with priorities varying by local capabilities. Timeliness and safety were seen as necessary for survival, enabling effectiveness in clinical and recovery outcomes, while equity operated across care pathways. The findings support aligning emergency quality indicators and improvement strategies with context-specific stakeholder priorities.
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.