Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38263128›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2024

Health seeking behaviours and private sector delivery of care for non-communicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Callum Brindley, Nilmini Wijemunige, Charlotte Dieteren, Judith Bom, Bruno Meessen, Igna Bonfrer

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Callum BrindleyErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. brindley@eshpm.eur.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5478-3974
Nilmini WijemunigeErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2241-3194
Charlotte DieterenErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7809-1657
Judith BomErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4477-7594
Bruno MeessenThe World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0359-8621
Igna BonfrerErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8570-0393
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLInstitute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka · LKWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of mortality and morbidity placing a huge burden on individuals, families and health systems, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This rising disease burden calls for policy responses that engage the entire health care system. This study aims to synthesize evidence on how people with NCDs choose their healthcare providers in LMICs, and the outcomes of these choices, with a focus on private sector delivery.

methodsA systematic search for literature following PRISMA guidelines was conducted. We extracted and synthesised data on the determinants and outcomes of private health care utilisation for NCDs in LMICs. A quality and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

resultsWe identified 115 studies for inclusion. Findings on determinants and outcomes were heterogenous, often based on a particular country context, disease, and provider. The most reported determinants of seeking private NCD care were patients having a higher socioeconomic status; greater availability of services, staff and medicines; convenience including proximity and opening hours; shorter waiting times and perceived quality. Transitioning between public and private facilities is common. Costs to patients were usually far higher in the private sector for both inpatient and outpatient settings. The quality of NCD care seems mixed depending on the disease, facility size and location, as well as the aspect of quality assessed.

conclusionGiven the limited, mixed and context specific evidence currently available, adapting health service delivery models to respond to NCDs remains a challenge in LMICs. More robust research on health seeking behaviours and outcomes, especially through large multi-country surveys, is needed to inform the effective design of mixed health care systems that effectively engage both public and private providers.

trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42022340059 .

Indexed as

Noncommunicable DiseasesDeveloping CountriesHealth BehaviorHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrivate SectorHealthcare providersHealth seekingLow-and-middle-income countriesNon-communicable diseasePrivate sector

Identifiers

PMID38263128
PMCPMC10807218
OpenAlexW4391136032

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.