A Systematic Tale of Two Differing Reviews
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.
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article biblioteca |
| Published: |
Springer
2017-04-12
|
| Subjects: | SYSTEMATIC REVIEW, QUALITY OF CARE, PRIMARY HEALTH CARE, PRIMARY CARE, PRIVATE CARE, |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10986/31372 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|