Cited by 482Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealthcare Quality and ManagementPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Effectiveness of strategies to improve health-care provider practices in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Open access
Rowe, Alexander K, Rowe, Samantha Y, Peters, David H, Holloway, Kathleen A, Chalker, John, Ross-Degnan, Dennis·2018·The Lancet Global Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inadequate health-care provider performance is a major challenge to the delivery of high-quality health care in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The Health Care Provider Performance Review (HCPPR) is a comprehensive systematic review of strategies to improve health-care provider performance in LMICs. METHODS: For this systematic review we searched 52 electronic databases for published studies and 58 document inventories for unpublished studies from the 1960s to 2016. Eligible study designs were controlled trials and interrupted time series. We only included strategy-versus-control group comparisons. We present results of improving health-care provider practice outcomes expressed as percentages (eg, percentage of patients treated correctly) or as continuous measures (eg, number of medicines prescribed per patient). Effect sizes were calculated as absolute percentage-point changes. The summary measure for each comparison was the median effect size (MES) for all primary outcomes. Strategy effectiveness was described with weighted medians of MES. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016046154. FINDINGS: We screened 216 477 citations and selected 670 reports from 337 studies of 118 strategies. Most strategies had multiple intervention components. For professional health-care providers (generally, facility-based health workers), the effects were near zero for only implementing a technology-based strategy (median MES 1·0 percentage points, IQR -2·8 to 9·9) or only providing printed information for health-care providers (1·4 percentage points, -4·8 to 6·2). For percentage outcomes, training or supervision alone typically had moderate effects (10·3-15·9 percentage points), whereas combining training and supervision had somewhat larger effects than use of either strategy alone (18·0-18·8 percentage points). Group problem solving alone showed large improvements in percentage outcomes (28·0-37·5 percentage points), but, when the strategy definition was broadened to include group problem solving alone or other strategy components, moderate effects were more typical (12·1 percentage points). Several multifaceted strategies had large effects, but multifaceted strategies were not always more effective than simpler ones. For lay health-care providers (generally, community health workers), the effect of training alone was small (2·4 percentage points). Strategies with larger effect sizes included community support plus health-care provider training (8·2-125·0 percentage points). Contextual and methodological heterogeneity made comparisons difficult, and most strategies had low quality evidence. INTERPRETATION: The impact of strategies to improve health-care provider practices varied substantially, although some approaches were more consistently effective than others. The breadth of the HCPPR makes its results valuable to decision makers for informing the selection of strategies to improve health-care provider practices in LMICs. These results also emphasise the need for researchers to use better methods to study the effectiveness of interventions. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, CDC Foundation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2214-109x(18)30398-x

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Human resource constraints provide a substantial obstacle, notably a deficiency of qualified professionals, including medical physicists and radiologists.

    “Human resource constraints provide a substantial obstacle, notably a deficiency of qualified professionals, including medical physicists and radiologists.”

    From Computed Tomography Diagnostic Reference Levels Worldwide and in Jordan: Implications for Patient Dose Reduction (2026) · cites this paper as [121]

    The Introduction discusses inadequate health-care provider performance in low-income and middle-income countries and includes availability within its definition of performance. It does not report a shortage of qualified professionals or identify medical physicists or radiologists; searches for those professions and for workforce shortages found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In numerous low- and middle-income countries, healthcare practitioners sometimes have excessive clinical responsibilities, resulting in minimal capacity for data collecting, analysis, or research dissemination.

    “In numerous low- and middle-income countries, healthcare practitioners sometimes have excessive clinical responsibilities, resulting in minimal capacity for data collecting, analysis, or research dissemination.120,121”

    From Computed Tomography Diagnostic Reference Levels Worldwide and in Jordan: Implications for Patient Dose Reduction (2026) · cites this paper as [121]

    The Discussion recommends using routinely collected data to reduce the time and cost of studies, but does not say that excessive clinical responsibilities leave practitioners little capacity for data collection, analysis, or dissemination. Searches for clinical workload, research time, and dissemination found no passage addressing that causal claim. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The World Health Organization advises that digital diagnostic platforms may be valuable for patients in low- and middle-income countries where expert clinical advice is difficult to access.

    “The World Health Organization already advises that digital diagnostic platforms may be valuable for patients in low- and middle-income countries where expert clinical advice is difficult to access.”

    From What is the clinical value of mHealth for patients? (2020) · cites this paper as [8]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [16]Ciapponi A Lewin S Herrera CA Delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017 2017 CD011083. PMC5621087 28901005
  2. [23]Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews. EPOC Resources for review authors 2015 Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services Oslo http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-specific-resources-review-authors

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rowe, A. K., Rowe, S. Y., Peters, D. H., Holloway, K. A., Chalker, J., & Ross-Degnan, D.
Affiliations
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • Management Sciences for Health (US)
Corresponding author
Rowe, Alexander K
Venue
The Lancet Global Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-11
Volume
6
Issue
11
Pages
e1163-e1175
ISSN
2214-109X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2894656887
Cited by
482
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 1
FWCI
9.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Global Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OpenDocs (Institute of Development Studies) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • World Bank Group (P098685)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • ADC Foundation
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP52730)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
quality of care, low- and middle-income countries, training and supervision, group problem solving, community health workers, multicomponent intervention, community support, effect size
MeSH terms
Developing Countries, Health Personnel, Humans, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Program Evaluation, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review