Alternative healthcare delivery arrangements in Nepal: a systematic review of comparative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness studies.

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMJ Global Health Pub Date : 2025-01-04 DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016024
Pramila Rai, Denise A O'Connor, Ilana Ackerman, Shyam Sundar Budhathoki, Rachelle Buchbinder
{"title":"Alternative healthcare delivery arrangements in Nepal: a systematic review of comparative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness studies.","authors":"Pramila Rai, Denise A O'Connor, Ilana Ackerman, Shyam Sundar Budhathoki, Rachelle Buchbinder","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The way that healthcare services are organised and delivered (termed 'healthcare delivery arrangements') is a key aspect of a health system. Changing the way health care is delivered, for example, task shifting that delivers the same care at lower cost, may be one way of improving healthcare system sustainability. We synthesised the existing randomised trial evidence to compare the effects of alternative healthcare delivery arrangements versus usual care in Nepal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For eligible studies published since 2005, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, the WHO clinical trials registry and NepJOL on 31 October 2024. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and percentage points (PPs) with 95% CIs for the outcomes and performed meta-analysis where appropriate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies met the inclusion criteria. One evaluated task shifting, two information and communication technology, and one care coordination. No meta-analyses were performed. Low certainty evidence indicates task shifting of medical abortion by doctors to midlevel providers may result in equivalent complete abortion (RR: 2.55, 95% CI: 0.82 to 4.27). Similarly, the use of a mobile phone call reminder may improve on-time medicine collection among patients with HIV compared with usual care (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.48), while the integration of postpartum family planning and postpartum intrauterine contraceptive device (PPIUCD) insertion with maternity services may improve PPIUCD uptake compared with usual care (PP: 0.173, 95% CI: 0.098 to 0.246).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>More evaluation is needed for alternative delivery arrangements due to limited low-certainty evidence from current trials. There was insufficient evidence on outcomes such as cost, safety, and patient and provider perspectives.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42022327298.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11749663/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016024","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The way that healthcare services are organised and delivered (termed 'healthcare delivery arrangements') is a key aspect of a health system. Changing the way health care is delivered, for example, task shifting that delivers the same care at lower cost, may be one way of improving healthcare system sustainability. We synthesised the existing randomised trial evidence to compare the effects of alternative healthcare delivery arrangements versus usual care in Nepal.

Methods: For eligible studies published since 2005, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, the WHO clinical trials registry and NepJOL on 31 October 2024. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and percentage points (PPs) with 95% CIs for the outcomes and performed meta-analysis where appropriate.

Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. One evaluated task shifting, two information and communication technology, and one care coordination. No meta-analyses were performed. Low certainty evidence indicates task shifting of medical abortion by doctors to midlevel providers may result in equivalent complete abortion (RR: 2.55, 95% CI: 0.82 to 4.27). Similarly, the use of a mobile phone call reminder may improve on-time medicine collection among patients with HIV compared with usual care (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.48), while the integration of postpartum family planning and postpartum intrauterine contraceptive device (PPIUCD) insertion with maternity services may improve PPIUCD uptake compared with usual care (PP: 0.173, 95% CI: 0.098 to 0.246).

Conclusion: More evaluation is needed for alternative delivery arrangements due to limited low-certainty evidence from current trials. There was insufficient evidence on outcomes such as cost, safety, and patient and provider perspectives.

Prospero registration number: CRD42022327298.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
尼泊尔替代性医疗服务安排:对比较有效性、安全性和成本效益研究的系统审查。
背景:卫生保健服务的组织和交付方式(称为“卫生保健交付安排”)是卫生系统的一个关键方面。例如,改变提供卫生保健的方式,以较低的成本提供相同的保健服务,可能是改善卫生保健系统可持续性的一种方法。我们综合了现有的随机试验证据,比较了尼泊尔替代性医疗服务安排与常规护理的效果。方法:对于2005年以来发表的符合条件的研究,我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL、CINAHL、Scopus、WHO临床试验注册库和2024年10月31日的NepJOL。两位作者独立评估了研究的合格性,提取了数据,并使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估了偏倚风险,使用推荐、评估、发展和评估分级评估了证据的确定性。我们计算了95% ci的风险比(rr)、平均差异(MDs)和百分点(PPs),并在适当的地方进行了荟萃分析。结果:4项研究符合纳入标准。一项评估任务转移,两项评估信息和通信技术,一项评估护理协调。未进行meta分析。低确定性证据表明,医生将药物流产的任务转移到中层提供者可能导致相同的完全流产(RR: 2.55, 95% CI: 0.82至4.27)。同样,与常规护理相比,使用手机提醒可以改善艾滋病毒患者的按时药物收集(RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.12至1.48),而与常规护理相比,产后计划生育和产后宫内节育器(PPIUCD)植入与产科服务相结合可以改善PPIUCD的吸收(PP: 0.173, 95% CI: 0.098至0.246)。结论:由于目前试验的低确定性证据有限,需要对替代分娩安排进行更多的评估。关于成本、安全性、患者和提供者观点等结果的证据不足。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42022327298。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
期刊最新文献
Acceptability of the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine alongside existing malaria interventions in the trial context. Evaluation of oral cholera vaccine (Euvichol-Plus) effectiveness against Vibrio cholerae in Bangladesh: an interim analysis. Modelling the health, financial protection and equity impacts of upscaling the ACT NOW early intervention breast cancer pilot program in the Philippines: an extended cost-effectiveness analysis. Risk factors associated with human Mpox infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Decoding mpox: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the transmission and severity parameters of the 2022-2023 global outbreak.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1