ArticleBMJ open2026
How do stakeholders assess Jordan's institutional readiness for universal health coverage? An exploratory qualitative interview study in Jordan.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore how senior stakeholders assess Jordan's institutional readiness for universal health coverage (UHC), identify institutional pathways connecting fragmentation, purchasing strategies, accountability and public trust, and develop a bounded, phased policy roadmap.
designExploratory qualitative study using semi-structured key-informant interviews and reflexive thematic analysis.
settingJordan's national health-policy, financing, insurance, regulatory, digital-health and service-delivery institutions.
participants18 purposively selected senior stakeholders, supplemented by selective snowball referrals, representing legislative, executive, public-finance, civil-insurance, digital-health, public and private provider and technical functions.
resultsNine themes were organised into four higher-order groups: (1) institutional fragmentation, governance and equitable access; (2) financing, information and digital readiness; (3) strategic purchasing and coordinated service delivery; and (4) social legitimacy, resilience and adaptive implementation. Participants described political commitment and substantial provider capacity as important foundations, but identified fragmented authority and insurance arrangements, weak purchasing, limited actuarial and integrated claims data, inconsistent public-private regulation, geographic inequities and conditional public trust as major constraints. The analysis suggests an institutional translation gap through which existing assets are not consistently converted into equitable, financially sustainable coverage.
conclusionsJordan's readiness is multidimensional and uneven rather than binary. A phased pathway should first establish governance, legal, actuarial, data and social-protection foundations; then pilot benefit, claims, purchasing and primary-care reforms; and subsequently scale coverage subject to predefined readiness criteria. Findings concerning social acceptability reflect elite stakeholder perceptions and require direct validation with uninsured people, refugees, rural communities and frontline providers.
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.