Systematic review of patients’ views on the quality of primary health care in sub-Saharan Africa

Systematic review of patients’ views on the quality of primary health care in sub-Saharan Africa

This is the first systematic review of patient views on the quality of primary health care services in sub-Saharan Africa using studies identified from MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE and PsycINFO. In total, 20 studies (3 qualitative, 3 mixed method and 14 quantitative) were included. Meta-analysis was...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Daprim S Ogaji, Sally Giles, Gavin Daker-White, Peter Bower
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2015-10-01
Series:SAGE Open Medicine
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312115608338
id doaj-df5d4f29a4d54d0c9b8eafebba22d029
record_format Article
spelling doaj-df5d4f29a4d54d0c9b8eafebba22d0292020-11-25T02:48:18ZengSAGE PublishingSAGE Open Medicine2050-31212015-10-01310.1177/205031211560833810.1177_2050312115608338Systematic review of patients’ views on the quality of primary health care in sub-Saharan AfricaDaprim S Ogaji0Sally Giles1Gavin Daker-White2Peter Bower3Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, NigeriaNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKNIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKThis is the first systematic review of patient views on the quality of primary health care services in sub-Saharan Africa using studies identified from MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE and PsycINFO. In total, 20 studies (3 qualitative, 3 mixed method and 14 quantitative) were included. Meta-analysis was done using quantitative findings from facility- and community-based studies of patient evaluation of primary health care. There was low use of validated measures, and the most common scales assessed were humanness (70%) and access (70%). While 66% (standard deviation = 21%) of respondents gave favourable feedback, there were discrepancies between surveys in community and facility contexts. Findings suggest that patient views could vary with subject recruitment site. We recommend improvement in the methods used to examine patient views on quality of primary health care.https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312115608338
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Daprim S Ogaji
Sally Giles
Gavin Daker-White
Peter Bower
spellingShingle Daprim S Ogaji
Sally Giles
Gavin Daker-White
Peter Bower
Systematic review of patients’ views on the quality of primary health care in sub-Saharan Africa
SAGE Open Medicine
author_facet Daprim S Ogaji
Sally Giles
Gavin Daker-White
Peter Bower
author_sort Daprim S Ogaji
title Systematic review of patients’ views on the quality of primary health care in sub-Saharan Africa
title_short Systematic review of patients’ views on the quality of primary health care in sub-Saharan Africa
title_full Systematic review of patients’ views on the quality of primary health care in sub-Saharan Africa
title_fullStr Systematic review of patients’ views on the quality of primary health care in sub-Saharan Africa
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of patients’ views on the quality of primary health care in sub-Saharan Africa
title_sort systematic review of patients’ views on the quality of primary health care in sub-saharan africa
publisher SAGE Publishing
series SAGE Open Medicine
issn 2050-3121
publishDate 2015-10-01
description This is the first systematic review of patient views on the quality of primary health care services in sub-Saharan Africa using studies identified from MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE and PsycINFO. In total, 20 studies (3 qualitative, 3 mixed method and 14 quantitative) were included. Meta-analysis was done using quantitative findings from facility- and community-based studies of patient evaluation of primary health care. There was low use of validated measures, and the most common scales assessed were humanness (70%) and access (70%). While 66% (standard deviation = 21%) of respondents gave favourable feedback, there were discrepancies between surveys in community and facility contexts. Findings suggest that patient views could vary with subject recruitment site. We recommend improvement in the methods used to examine patient views on quality of primary health care.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312115608338
work_keys_str_mv AT daprimsogaji systematicreviewofpatientsviewsonthequalityofprimaryhealthcareinsubsaharanafrica
AT sallygiles systematicreviewofpatientsviewsonthequalityofprimaryhealthcareinsubsaharanafrica
AT gavindakerwhite systematicreviewofpatientsviewsonthequalityofprimaryhealthcareinsubsaharanafrica
AT peterbower systematicreviewofpatientsviewsonthequalityofprimaryhealthcareinsubsaharanafrica
_version_ 1724748649190129664

Similar Items