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

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), pub...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Coarasa, Jorge, Das, Jishnu, Gummerson, Elizabeth, Bitton, Asaf
Format:	Journal Article
Published:	Springer 2019
Subjects:	SYSTEMATIC REVIEW QUALITY OF CARE PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PRIMARY CARE PRIVATE CARE
Online Access:	http://hdl.handle.net/10986/31372

id	okr-10986-31372
recordtype	oai_dc
spelling	okr-10986-313722021-05-25T10:54:37Z 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 Coarasa, Jorge Das, Jishnu Gummerson, Elizabeth Bitton, Asaf SYSTEMATIC REVIEW QUALITY OF CARE PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PRIMARY CARE PRIVATE CARE 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. 2019-03-12T15:47:13Z 2019-03-12T15:47:13Z 2017-04-12 Journal Article Globalization and Health 1744-8603 http://hdl.handle.net/10986/31372 CC BY 4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 World Bank Springer Publications & Research :: Journal Article Publications & Research
repository_type	Digital Repository
institution_category	Foreign Institution
institution	Digital Repositories
building	World Bank Open Knowledge Repository
collection	World Bank
topic	SYSTEMATIC REVIEW QUALITY OF CARE PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PRIMARY CARE PRIVATE CARE
spellingShingle	SYSTEMATIC REVIEW QUALITY OF CARE PRIMARY HEALTH CARE PRIMARY CARE PRIVATE CARE Coarasa, Jorge Das, Jishnu Gummerson, Elizabeth Bitton, Asaf 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
description	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.
format	Journal Article
author	Coarasa, Jorge Das, Jishnu Gummerson, Elizabeth Bitton, Asaf
author_facet	Coarasa, Jorge Das, Jishnu Gummerson, Elizabeth Bitton, Asaf
author_sort	Coarasa, Jorge
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_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_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_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
publisher	Springer
publishDate	2019
url	http://hdl.handle.net/10986/31372
_version_	1764474178052816896

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

Similar Items