• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Globalization and Health >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
【2h】

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

机译：两次不同评论的系统故事：评估中低收入国家公共和私营部门初级保健质量的证据

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

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.
机译：系统评价是汇总有争议区域中大量数据的强大工具；但是它们的效用受到方法选择和假设的限制。一年内在同一期刊上发表了两次有关中低收入国家（LMIC）私营部门初级保健质量的文献的系统综述，得出了相互矛盾的结论。结果的差异反映了不同的审查方法，但更重要的是，基础文献薄弱。两项评论中引用的文献的详细检查显示，只有一项基础研究符合方法学鲁棒性的金标准。鉴于当前全球范围内全民健康覆盖和初级卫生保健改革的政策势头，迫切需要有关LMIC中私营与公共部门初级卫生保健质量的高质量经验证据。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号