Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
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
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
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
Do you wish to request the book?
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
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
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
2017
Overview
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.
Publisher
BioMed Central,Springer,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
Subject
