41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      review-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

          Background

          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.

          Objectives

          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.

          Methods

          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.

          Main results

          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.

          Authors' conclusions

          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.

          Effects of delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries

          What is the aim of this overview?

          The aim of this Cochrane Overview is to provide a broad summary of what is known about the effects of delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries.

          This overview is based on 51 systematic reviews. These systematic reviews searched for studies that evaluated different types of delivery arrangements. The reviews included a total of 850 studies.

          This overview is one of a series of four Cochrane Overviews that evaluate health system arrangements.

          What was studied in the overview?

          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 health care 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 overview can help policymakers and other stakeholders to identify evidence-informed strategies to improve the delivery of services.

          What are the main results of the overview?

          When focusing only on evidence assessed as high to moderate certainty, the overview points to a number of delivery arrangements that had at least one desirable outcome and no evidence of any undesirable outcomes. These include the following:

          Who receives care and when

          - Queuing strategies

          - Group antenatal care

          Who provides care – role expansion or task shifting

          - Lay or community health workers supporting the care of people with hypertension

          - Community-based neonatal packages that include additional training of outreach workers

          - Lay health workers to deliver care for mothers and children or for infectious diseases

          - Mid-level, non-physician providers for abortion care

          - Health workers providing social support during at-risk pregnancies

          - Midwife-led care for childbearing women and their infants

          - Non-specialist health workers or other professionals with health roles to help people with mental, neurological and substance-abuse disorders

          - Nurses substituting for physicians in providing care

          Coordination of care

          - Structured multidisciplinary care plans (care pathways) used by health care providers in hospitals to detail essential steps in the care of people with a specific clinical problem

          - Interactive communication between collaborating primary care physicians and specialist physicians in outpatient care

          - Planning to facilitate patients’ discharge from hospital to home

          - Adding a new health service to an existing service and integrating services in health care delivery

          - Integrating vaccination with other healthcare services

          - Using physicians rather than nurses to lead triage in emergency departments

          - Groups or teams of midwives providing care for a group of women during pregnancy and childbirth and after childbirth

          Where care is provided – site of service delivery

          - Clinics or hospitals that manage a high volume of people living with HIV and AIDS rather than smaller volumes

          - Intensive home-based care for people living with HIV and AIDS

          - Home-based management of malaria in children

          - Providing care closer to home for children with long-term health conditions

          - Community-based interventions using lay health workers for childhood diarrhoea and pneumonia

          - Youth HIV and reproductive health services provided outside of health facilities

          - Decentralising care for initiation and maintenance of HIV and AIDS medicine treatment to peripheral health centres or lower levels of healthcare

          Information and communication technology

          - Mobile phone messaging for people 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

          - Information and communication interventions to improve childhood vaccination coverage

          Quality and safety systems

          - Establishing clinical information systems to organize patient data for people living with HIV and AIDS

          Packages that include multiple interventions

          - Interventions to improve referral for emergency care during pregnancy and childbirth

          How up to date is this overview?

          The overview authors searched for systematic reviews that had been published up to 17 December 2016.

          Related collections

          Most cited references167

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

          Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

          Developers of health care software have attributed improvements in patient care to these applications. As with any health care intervention, such claims require confirmation in clinical trials. To review controlled trials assessing the effects of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and to identify study characteristics predicting benefit. We updated our earlier reviews by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Inspec, and ISI databases and consulting reference lists through September 2004. Authors of 64 primary studies confirmed data or provided additional information. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of a CDSS compared with care provided without a CDSS on practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data on methods, setting, CDSS and patient characteristics, and outcomes. One hundred studies met our inclusion criteria. The number and methodologic quality of studies improved over time. The CDSS improved practitioner performance in 62 (64%) of the 97 studies assessing this outcome, including 4 (40%) of 10 diagnostic systems, 16 (76%) of 21 reminder systems, 23 (62%) of 37 disease management systems, and 19 (66%) of 29 drug-dosing or prescribing systems. Fifty-two trials assessed 1 or more patient outcomes, of which 7 trials (13%) reported improvements. Improved practitioner performance was associated with CDSSs that automatically prompted users compared with requiring users to activate the system (success in 73% of trials vs 47%; P = .02) and studies in which the authors also developed the CDSS software compared with studies in which the authors were not the developers (74% success vs 28%; respectively, P = .001). Many CDSSs improve practitioner performance. To date, the effects on patient outcomes remain understudied and, when studied, inconsistent.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients.

            Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem. Infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria are associated with prolonged hospital stay and death compared with infections caused by susceptible bacteria. Appropriate antibiotic use in hospitals should ensure effective treatment of patients with infection and reduce unnecessary prescriptions. We updated this systematic review to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The association between continuity of care and outcomes: a systematic and critical review.

              Numerous studies have tried to determine the association between continuity and outcomes. Studies doing so must actually measure continuity. If continuity and outcomes are measured concurrently, their association can only be determined with time-dependent methods. To identify and summarize all methodologically studies that measure the association between continuity of care and patient outcomes. We searched MEDLINE database (1950-2008) and hand-searched to identify studies that tried to associate continuity and outcomes. English studies were included if they: actually measured continuity; determined the association of continuity with patient outcomes; and properly accounted for the relative timing of continuity and outcome measures. A total of 139 English language studies tried to measure the association between continuity and outcomes but only 18 studies (12.9%) met methodological criteria. All but two studies measured provider continuity and used health utilization or patient satisfaction as the outcome. Eight of nine high-quality studies found a significant association between increased continuity and decreased health utilization including hospitalization and emergency visits. Five of seven studies found improved patient satisfaction with increased continuity. These studies validate the belief that increased provider continuity is associated with improved patient outcomes and satisfaction. Further research is required to determine whether information or management continuity improves outcomes. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cochrane Database Syst Rev
                Cochrane Database Syst Rev
                cd
                The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (Chichester, UK )
                1469-493X
                13 September 2017
                : 9
                : CD011083
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Argentine Cochrane Centre, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET) Buenos Aires, Argentina
                [2 ]Norwegian Institute of Public Health Oslo, Norway
                [3 ]Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council Tygerberg, South Africa
                [4 ]Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Santiago, Chile
                [5 ]Evidence Based Health Care Program, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Santiago, Chile
                [6 ]Cochrane Editorial Unit, Cochrane London, UK
                [7 ]Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Santiago, Chile
                [8 ]Department of Internal Medicine and Evidence-Based Healthcare Program, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Santiago, Chile
                [9 ]Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council Cape Town, South Africa
                [10 ]Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University Cape Town, South Africa
                [11 ]Division of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University Cape Town, South Africa
                [12 ]Department for Evidence Synthesis, Norwegian Institute of Public Health Oslo, Norway
                [13 ]Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Centre Québec City, Canada
                [14 ]Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy Buenos Aires, Argentina
                [15 ]Global Health Unit, Norwegian Institute of Public Health Oslo, Norway
                [16 ]Discipline of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal Durban, South Africa
                Author notes
                Argentine Cochrane Centre, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Dr. Emilio Ravignani 2024, Buenos Aires, Capital Federal, C1414CPV, Argentina. aciapponi@ 123456iecs.org.ar , aciapponi@ 123456gmail.com .
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD011083.pub2
                5621087
                28901005
                a7a7ec89-2a06-4072-a266-cf2b79ecea7f
                Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial Licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                Categories
                Review

                Comments

                Comment on this article