ArticleBMJ global health2026
Formalising remote consulting in primary care services for underserved populations with long-term conditions in sub-Saharan Africa: a process evaluation and stakeholder engagement.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRemote consulting can improve healthcare access and equity. When delivered by trained health workers, it is safe, trustworthy and efficient. Alongside two independent clinical trials, we studied the implementation of a cascaded health worker training intervention (REaCH), plus airtime, on remote consulting in primary healthcare facilities in Nigeria (n=35) and Tanzania (n=21). Additionally, we assessed health service readiness for sustainable remote consulting in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Uganda.
methodsWe explored what worked for whom, how, and why in both health worker training in Nigeria (n=115) and Tanzania (n=136), and the implementation of remote consulting for patients with long-term conditions. We assessed REaCH training for talent, resources, alignment, implementation and nurture. We analysed system readiness with WHO's Digital Investment Guide. We undertook 82 semi-structured interviews with health workers and patients (n=40: Nigeria, n=42: Tanzania), collected text produced, engaged with stakeholders and reviewed key policies/guidelines. Data were analysed thematically.
resultsHealth workers were already doing informal remote consulting. REaCH training helped facilities to plan and implement remote consulting. It addressed concerns about delivering a safe and ethical service. Provision of airtime was critical. Health workers used remote consulting for patient follow-up and patients sought advice, test results, prescriptions, referrals and emergency help. Patients and health workers trusted and appreciated remote consulting as it saved time. Patients felt cared for, but some received calls at inconvenient times. Health workers reported reduced stress but noted off-duty calls could be burdensome. Stakeholders were aware of informal remote consulting and were concerned about quality. None of the study countries provided airtime for remote consulting or had guidance or recording systems for remote consulting.
conclusionThere is an appetite for remote consulting in primary healthcare. However, health systems in seven countries of sub-Saharan Africa are not yet fully prepared for this.
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.