↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Delivery arrangements for health systems in low‐income countries: an overview of systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 policy source
15 X users
1 Facebook page


81 Dimensions

Readers on

1621 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
Delivery arrangements for health systems in low‐income countries: an overview of systematic reviews
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011083.pub2
Pubmed ID

Agustín Ciapponi, Simon Lewin, Cristian A Herrera, Newton Opiyo, Tomas Pantoja, Elizabeth Paulsen, Gabriel Rada, Charles S Wiysonge, Gabriel Bastías, Lilian Dudley, Signe Flottorp, Marie‐Pierre Gagnon, Sebastian Garcia Marti, Claire Glenton, Charles I Okwundu, Blanca Peñaloza, Fatima Suleman, Andrew D Oxman


Delivery arrangements include changes in who receives care and when, who provides care, the working conditions of those who provide care, coordination of care amongst different providers, where care is provided, the use of information and communication technology to deliver care, and quality and safety systems. How services are delivered can have impacts on the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of health systems. This broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers and other stakeholders identify strategies for addressing problems and improve the delivery of services. To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on delivery arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for delivery arrangements outlined in the review. We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of delivery arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty or employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence), and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 51 of them in this overview. We judged 6 of the 51 reviews to have important methodological limitations and the other 45 to have only minor limitations. We grouped delivery arrangements into eight categories. Some reviews provided more than one comparison and were in more than one category. Across these categories, the following intervention were effective; that is, they have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects. Who receives care and when: queuing strategies and antenatal care to groups of mothers. Who provides care: lay health workers for caring for people with hypertension, lay health workers to deliver care for mothers and children or infectious diseases, lay health workers to deliver community-based neonatal care packages, midlevel health professionals for abortion care, social support to pregnant women at risk, midwife-led care for childbearing women, non-specialist providers in mental health and neurology, and physician-nurse substitution. Coordination of care: hospital clinical pathways, case management for people living with HIV and AIDS, interactive communication between primary care doctors and specialists, hospital discharge planning, adding a service to an existing service and integrating delivery models, referral from primary to secondary care, physician-led versus nurse-led triage in emergency departments, and team midwifery. Where care is provided: high-volume institutions, home-based care (with or without multidisciplinary team) for people living with HIV and AIDS, home-based management of malaria, home care for children with acute physical conditions, community-based interventions for childhood diarrhoea and pneumonia, out-of-facility HIV and reproductive health services for youth, and decentralised HIV care. Information and communication technology: mobile phone messaging for patients with long-term illnesses, mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments, mobile phone messaging to promote adherence to antiretroviral therapy, women carrying their own case notes in pregnancy, interventions to improve childhood vaccination. Quality and safety systems: decision support with clinical information systems for people living with HIV/AIDS. Complex interventions (cutting across delivery categories and other health system arrangements): emergency obstetric referral interventions. A wide range of strategies have been evaluated for improving delivery arrangements in low-income countries, using sound systematic review methods in both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. These reviews have assessed a range of outcomes. Most of the available evidence focuses on who provides care, where care is provided and coordination of care. For all the main categories of delivery arrangements, we identified gaps in primary research related to uncertainty about the applicability of the evidence to low-income countries, low- or very low-certainty evidence or a lack of studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 1,621 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1621 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 273 17%
Researcher 172 11%
Student > Bachelor 149 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 139 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 83 5%
Other 280 17%
Unknown 525 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 395 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 234 14%
Psychology 82 5%
Social Sciences 82 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 2%
Other 203 13%
Unknown 599 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 December 2022.
All research outputs
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 323,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 323,485 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.