A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries
Abstract Systematic reviews are powerful tools for summarizing vast amounts of data in controversial areas; but their utility is limited by methodological choices and assumptions. Two systematic reviews of literature on the quality of private sector primary care in low and middle income countries (L...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2017-04-01
|
| Series: | Globalization and Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12992-017-0246-4 |
| _version_ | 1818138022062850048 |
|---|---|
| author | Jorge Coarasa Jishnu Das Elizabeth Gummerson Asaf Bitton |
| author_facet | Jorge Coarasa Jishnu Das Elizabeth Gummerson Asaf Bitton |
| author_sort | Jorge Coarasa |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Systematic reviews are powerful tools for summarizing vast amounts of data in controversial areas; but their utility is limited by methodological choices and assumptions. Two systematic reviews of literature on the quality of private sector primary care in low and middle income countries (LMIC), published in the same journal within a year, reached conflicting conclusions. The difference in findings reflects different review methodologies, but more importantly, a weak underlying body of literature. A detailed examination of the literature cited in both reviews shows that only one of the underlying studies met the gold standard for methodological robustness. Given the current policy momentum on universal health coverage and primary health care reform across the globe, there is an urgent need for high quality empirical evidence on the quality of private versus public sector primary health care in LMIC. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T10:05:35Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f91e9896e34946d2a5f26a2eaa95dbbf |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1744-8603 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T10:05:35Z |
| publishDate | 2017-04-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Globalization and Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-f91e9896e34946d2a5f26a2eaa95dbbf2022-12-22T01:11:58ZengBMCGlobalization and Health1744-86032017-04-011311710.1186/s12992-017-0246-4A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countriesJorge Coarasa0Jishnu Das1Elizabeth Gummerson2Asaf Bitton3World BankWorld BankThe International Center for AIDS Care and Treatment Programs, Columbia University, Mailman School of Public HealthAriadne Labs, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham & Women’s HospitalAbstract Systematic reviews are powerful tools for summarizing vast amounts of data in controversial areas; but their utility is limited by methodological choices and assumptions. Two systematic reviews of literature on the quality of private sector primary care in low and middle income countries (LMIC), published in the same journal within a year, reached conflicting conclusions. The difference in findings reflects different review methodologies, but more importantly, a weak underlying body of literature. A detailed examination of the literature cited in both reviews shows that only one of the underlying studies met the gold standard for methodological robustness. Given the current policy momentum on universal health coverage and primary health care reform across the globe, there is an urgent need for high quality empirical evidence on the quality of private versus public sector primary health care in LMIC.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12992-017-0246-4Systematic ReviewsQuality of CarePublic versus Private carePrimary Health CareLMICPrimary Care |
| spellingShingle | Jorge Coarasa Jishnu Das Elizabeth Gummerson Asaf Bitton A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries Globalization and Health Systematic Reviews Quality of Care Public versus Private care Primary Health Care LMIC Primary Care |
| title | A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries |
| title_full | A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries |
| title_fullStr | A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries |
| title_full_unstemmed | A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries |
| title_short | A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries |
| title_sort | systematic tale of two differing reviews evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries |
| topic | Systematic Reviews Quality of Care Public versus Private care Primary Health Care LMIC Primary Care |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12992-017-0246-4 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jorgecoarasa asystematictaleoftwodifferingreviewsevaluatingtheevidenceonpublicandprivatesectorqualityofprimarycareinlowandmiddleincomecountries AT jishnudas asystematictaleoftwodifferingreviewsevaluatingtheevidenceonpublicandprivatesectorqualityofprimarycareinlowandmiddleincomecountries AT elizabethgummerson asystematictaleoftwodifferingreviewsevaluatingtheevidenceonpublicandprivatesectorqualityofprimarycareinlowandmiddleincomecountries AT asafbitton asystematictaleoftwodifferingreviewsevaluatingtheevidenceonpublicandprivatesectorqualityofprimarycareinlowandmiddleincomecountries AT jorgecoarasa systematictaleoftwodifferingreviewsevaluatingtheevidenceonpublicandprivatesectorqualityofprimarycareinlowandmiddleincomecountries AT jishnudas systematictaleoftwodifferingreviewsevaluatingtheevidenceonpublicandprivatesectorqualityofprimarycareinlowandmiddleincomecountries AT elizabethgummerson systematictaleoftwodifferingreviewsevaluatingtheevidenceonpublicandprivatesectorqualityofprimarycareinlowandmiddleincomecountries AT asafbitton systematictaleoftwodifferingreviewsevaluatingtheevidenceonpublicandprivatesectorqualityofprimarycareinlowandmiddleincomecountries |