↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Public stewardship of private for‐profit healthcare providers in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
430 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Public stewardship of private for‐profit healthcare providers in low‐ and middle‐income countries
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009855.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles S Wiysonge, Leila H Abdullahi, Valantine N Ndze, Gregory D Hussey

Abstract

Governments use different approaches to ensure that private for-profit healthcare services meet certain quality standards. Such government guidance, referred to as public stewardship, encompasses government policies, regulatory mechanisms, and implementation strategies for ensuring accountability in the delivery of services. However, the effectiveness of these strategies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have not been the subject of a systematic review. To assess the effects of public sector regulation, training, or co-ordination of the private for-profit health sector in low- and middle-income countries. For related systematic reviews, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) 2015, Issue 4; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) 2015, Issue 1; Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) 2015, Issue 1; all part of The Cochrane Library, and searched 28 April 2015. For primary studies, we searched MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and MEDLINE 1946 to Present, OvidSP (searched 16 June 2016); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index 1987 to present, and Emerging Sources Citation Index 2015 to present, ISI Web of Science (searched 3 May 2016 for papers citing included studies); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2015, Issue 3, part of The Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register) (searched 28 April 2015); Embase 1980 to 2015 Week 17, OvidSP (searched 28 April 2015); Global Health 1973 to 2015 Week 16, OvidSP (searched 30 April 2015); WHOLIS, WHO (searched 30 April 2015); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index 1975 to present, ISI Web of Science (searched 30 April 2015); Health Management, ProQuest (searched 22 November 2013). In addition, in April 2016, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, and various electronic databases of grey literature. Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time series studies, or controlled before-after studies. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data, comparing their results and resolving discrepancies by consensus. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where appropriate, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We did not conduct meta-analysis because of heterogeneity of interventions and study designs. We identified 20,177 records, 50 of them potentially eligible. We excluded 39 potentially eligible studies because they did not involve a rigorous evaluation of training, regulation, or co-ordination of private for-profit healthcare providers in LMICs; five studies identified after the review was submitted are awaiting assessment; and six studies met our inclusion criteria. Two included studies assessed training alone; one assessed regulation alone; three assessed a multifaceted intervention involving training and regulation; and none assessed co-ordination. All six included studies targeted private for-profit pharmacy workers in Africa and Asia.Three studies found that training probably increases sale of oral rehydration solution (one trial in Kenya, 106 pharmacies: RR 3.04, 95% CI 1.37 to 6.75; and one trial in Indonesia, 87 pharmacies: RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.93) and dispensing of anti-malarial drugs (one trial in Kenya, 293 pharmacies: RR 8.76, 95% CI 0.94 to 81.81); moderate-certainty evidence.One study conducted in the Lao People's Democratic Republic shows that regulation of the distribution and sale of registered pharmaceutical products may improve composite pharmacy indicators (one trial, 115 pharmacies: improvements in four of six pharmacy indicators; low-certainty evidence).The outcome in three multifaceted intervention studies was the quality of pharmacy practice; including the ability to ask questions, give advice, and provide appropriate treatment. The trials applied regulation, training, and peer influence in sequence; and the study design does not permit separation of the effects of the different interventions. Two trials conducted among 136 pharmacies in Vietnam found that the multifaceted intervention may improve the quality of pharmacy practice; but the third study, involving 146 pharmacies in Vietnam and Thailand, found that the intervention may have little or no effects on the quality of pharmacy practice (low-certainty evidence).Only two studies (both conducted in Vietnam) reported cost data, with no rigorous assessment of the economic implications of implementing the interventions in resource-constrained settings. No study reported data on equity, mortality, morbidity, adverse effects, satisfaction, or attitudes. Training probably improves quality of care (i.e. adherence to recommended practice), regulation may improve quality of care, and we are uncertain about the effects of co-ordination on quality of private for-profit healthcare services in LMICs. The likelihood that further research will find the effect of training to be substantially different from the results of this review is moderate; implying that monitoring of the impact is likely to be needed if training is implemented. The low certainty of the evidence for regulation implies that the likelihood of further research finding the effect of regulation to be substantially different from the results of this review is high. Therefore, an impact evaluation is warranted if government regulation of private for-profit providers is implemented in LMICs. Rigorous evaluations of these interventions should also assess other outcomes such as impacts on equity, cost implications, mortality, morbidity, and adverse effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 430 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 428 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 16%
Researcher 61 14%
Student > Bachelor 31 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 7%
Other 25 6%
Other 78 18%
Unknown 139 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 58 13%
Social Sciences 25 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 3%
Other 62 14%
Unknown 152 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,830,117
of 25,385,864 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,598
of 12,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,143
of 366,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#111
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.