37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Unravelling ‘low-resource settings’: a systematic scoping review with qualitative content analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The effects of healthcare-related inequalities are most evident in low-resource settings. Such settings are often not explicitly defined, and umbrella terms which are easier to operationalise, such as ‘low-to-middle-income countries’ or ‘developing countries’, are often used. Without a deeper understanding of context, such proxies are pregnant with assumptions, insinuate homogeneity that is unsupported and hamper knowledge translation between settings.

          Methods

          A systematic scoping review was undertaken to start unravelling the term ‘low-resource setting’. PubMed, Africa-Wide, Web of Science and Scopus were searched (24 June 2019), dating back ≤5 years, using terms related to ‘low-resource setting’ and ‘rehabilitation’. Rehabilitation was chosen as a methodological vehicle due to its holistic nature (eg, multidisciplinary, relevance across burden of disease, and throughout continuum of care) and expertise within the research team. Qualitative content analysis through an inductive approach was used.

          Results

          A total of 410 codes were derived from 48 unique articles within the field of rehabilitation, grouped into 63 content categories, and identified nine major themes relating to the term ‘low-resource setting’. Themes that emerged relate to (1) financial pressure, (2) suboptimal healthcare service delivery, (3) underdeveloped infrastructure, (4) paucity of knowledge, (5) research challenges and considerations, (6) restricted social resources, (7) geographical and environmental factors, (8) human resource limitations and (9) the influence of beliefs and practices.

          Conclusion

          The emerging themes may assist with (1) the groundwork needed to unravel ‘low-resource settings’ in health-related research, (2) moving away from assumptive umbrella terms like ‘low-to-middle-income countries’ or ‘low/middle-income countries’ and (3) promoting effective knowledge transfer between settings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references85

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

            Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper.

              This discussion paper is aimed to map content analysis in the qualitative paradigm and explore common methodological challenges. We discuss phenomenological descriptions of manifest content and hermeneutical interpretations of latent content. We demonstrate inductive, deductive, and abductive approaches to qualitative content analysis, and elaborate on the level of abstraction and degree of interpretation used in constructing categories, descriptive themes, and themes of meaning. With increased abstraction and interpretation comes an increased challenge to demonstrate the credibility and authenticity of the analysis. A key issue is to show the logic in how categories and themes are abstracted, interpreted, and connected to the aim and to each other. Qualitative content analysis is an autonomous method and can be used at varying levels of abstraction and interpretation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2021
                3 June 2021
                : 6
                : 6
                : e005190
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDivision of Physiotherapy , Stellenbosch University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences , Cape Town, South Africa
                [2 ]departmentInstitute of Sport and Exercise Medicine , Stellenbosch University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences , Cape Town, South Africa
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Martin Heine; mheine@ 123456sun.ac.za
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5315-8395
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8443-9173
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5227-9881
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4131-2863
                Article
                bmjgh-2021-005190
                10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005190
                8183220
                34083239
                9e7475ac-c3a8-4b85-861a-eb892132373a
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 29 January 2021
                : 28 April 2021
                : 29 April 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001961, AXA Research Fund;
                Award ID: S005459
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                qualitative study,health systems,review,public health
                qualitative study, health systems, review, public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article