92
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Quality of Private and Public Ambulatory Health Care in Low and Middle Income Countries: Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Paul Garner and colleagues conducted a systematic review of 80 studies to compare the quality of private versus public ambulatory health care in low- and middle-income countries.

          Abstract

          Background

          In developing countries, the private sector provides a substantial proportion of primary health care to low income groups for communicable and non-communicable diseases. These providers are therefore central to improving health outcomes. We need to know how their services compare to those of the public sector to inform policy options.

          Methods and Findings

          We summarised reliable research comparing the quality of formal private versus public ambulatory health care in low and middle income countries. We selected studies against inclusion criteria following a comprehensive search, yielding 80 studies. We compared quality under standard categories, converted values to a linear 100% scale, calculated differences between providers within studies, and summarised median values of the differences across studies. As the results for for-profit and not-for-profit providers were similar, we combined them. Overall, median values indicated that many services, irrespective of whether public or private, scored low on infrastructure, clinical competence, and practice. Overall, the private sector performed better in relation to drug supply, responsiveness, and effort. No difference between provider groups was detected for patient satisfaction or competence. Synthesis of qualitative components indicates the private sector is more client centred.

          Conclusions

          Although data are limited, quality in both provider groups seems poor, with the private sector performing better in drug availability and aspects of delivery of care, including responsiveness and effort, and possibly being more client orientated. Strategies seeking to influence quality in both groups are needed to improve care delivery and outcomes for the poor, including managing the increasing burden of non-communicable diseases.

          Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

          Editors' Summary

          Background

          The provision of private (“for-profit” hospitals and self-employed practitioners, and “not-for-profit” non-government providers, including faith-based organizations) versus public health care services in low and middle income countries raises considerable ideological debate. Ideological arguments aside—which can be very passionate on both sides—there is general agreement that improving the quality of both public and private health care could have a major impact on improved health outcomes, especially as the private sector is so widely used in low and middle income countries. For example, almost three quarters and half of children from the poorest households of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, respectively, seek health care from a private provider when they are ill. Private providers are also increasingly responsible for outpatient care for non-communicable diseases.

          As a result of the mixed health care system in many low and middle income countries, adequate oversight and stewardship of the mixed system from the national government is essential yet often missing.

          Why Was This Study Done?

          An understanding of how quality and performance in the private sector compares with that in the public sector would help governments to prioritize where they need to concentrate their efforts. So, for example, if the private sector is generally providing poorer quality care than the public sector, then there is an imperative to improve the quality and outcomes; on the other hand, if the quality of care offered by the private sector is good, the policy priority is to influence the market to further improve access to such health care for low income groups.

          In order to help with this comparison, the researchers wanted to systematically identify and summarize the results of studies that directly compared the quality of care offered by public providers with the one offered by “formal” private providers (recognized by law) and “informal” private providers (providers that are not legally recognized, such as lay health workers and shop keepers). For the purposes of this study the researchers focused their comparison on the private and public provision of outpatient care in low and middle income countries.

          What Did the Researchers Do and Find?

          In their literature review, the researchers searched for relevant studies reported in English, French, or German and published between January 1970 and April 2009. Only studies that compared private and public outpatient medical services in the same country, at the same time, using the same methods, and which met particular quality criteria, were included in the analysis. The researchers also had strict criteria for including qualitative studies, and they retrieved the full text of articles, contacted study authors where appropriate, and verified with a second researcher most (80%) of the extracted study data. In order to evaluate and compare the studies, the researchers converted study values to a linear 100% scale, calculated differences between providers within studies, and summarized the median values of the differences across studies.

          The researchers identified a total of 8,812 relevant titles and abstracts and found 80 studies that included direct quantitative comparisons of public and private formal providers. Ten studies included qualitative data. Most studies were conducted after 1990, and mainly in sub-Saharan Africa ( n = 39) and Asia and the Pacific ( n = 23). Most studies did not report socio-economic status of public and private service users, and only five studies presented data by different income groups. No study compared the same individual providers working in public and private care settings. Only two studies compared public providers and private informal providers, so the authors excluded these from subsequent analysis.

          For the formal sector, since the results for “for-profit” and “not-for-profit” providers were similar, the researchers decided to combine the results. Overall, the researchers found that the median values indicated that many services, irrespective of whether public or private, scored low (less than 50%) on infrastructure, clinical competence, and practice. Generally, the private sector performed better in relation to drug supply, responsiveness, and effort, but there was no detectable difference between provider groups for patient satisfaction. Furthermore, a synthesis of qualitative data suggested that the private sector may be more client-centered.

          What Do These Findings Mean?

          Based on the findings of this review, there is a clear need to consider the quality of primary health services in both the public and private sector in order to improve health outcomes in low and middle income countries. These findings also indicate that, for some aspects of care, on average the private sector provided better quality services. The overall low quality of care in both the formal private and public sector found in this review is worrying, and calls for the governments of low and middle income countries to find and implement effective strategies to improve the quality in both sectors. This is particularly important given the increasing volume of conditions that require relatively sophisticated, long-term ambulatory medical care, such as non-communicable diseases.

          Additional Information

          Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000433.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990–2020: Global Burden of Disease Study

          The Lancet, 349(9064), 1498-1504
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preventing chronic diseases: how many lives can we save?

            35 million people will die in 2005 from heart disease, stroke, cancer, and other chronic diseases. Only 20% of these deaths will be in high-income countries--while 80% will occur in low-income and middle-income countries. The death rates from these potentially preventable diseases are higher in low-income and middle-income countries than in high-income countries, especially among adults aged 30-69 years. The impact on men and women is similar. We propose a new goal for reducing deaths from chronic disease to focus prevention and control efforts among those concerned about international health. This goal-to reduce chronic disease death rates by an additional 2% annually--would avert 36 million deaths by 2015. An additional benefit will be a gain of about 500 million years of life over the 10 years from 2006 to 2015. Most of these averted deaths and life-years gained will be in low-income and middle-income countries, and just under half will be in people younger than 70 years. We base the global goal on worldwide projections of deaths by cause for 2005 and 2015. The data are presented for the world, selected countries, and World Bank income groups.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The quality of medical care.

              This article classifies the major approaches to the assessment of the process and outcomes of medical care. The apparent need to safeguard and enhance the quality of care has led to the institution of mechanisms that subject care to constant review so that deficiencies may be found and corrected. The article reviews the developments that led to the involvement of the federal government in this activity through its sponsorship of professional standards review organizations (PSRO's). The major features of the PSRO's are described and their possible effects discussed. It is too early to say how the PSRO's will fare, but should they fail to accomplish their objectives the pressure for more radical solutions will be difficult to resist.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Med
                PLoS
                plosmed
                PLoS Medicine
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1549-1277
                1549-1676
                April 2011
                April 2011
                12 April 2011
                : 8
                : 4
                : e1000433
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Menzies Center for Health Policy, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
                [3 ]Institute of Education, University of London, London, United Kingdom
                King's College London, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                ICMJE criteria for authorship read and met: SB PH SO PG. Agree with the manuscript's results and conclusions: SB PH SO PG. Designed the experiments/the study: SB PH SO PG. Analyzed the data: SB PH SO PG. Collected data/did experiments for the study: SB PG. Wrote the first draft of the paper: SB. Contributed to the writing of the paper: PH SO PG.

                Article
                10-PLME-RA-6004R2
                10.1371/journal.pmed.1000433
                3075233
                21532746
                f15af947-00a0-49d8-b174-7d2f8dd65476
                Berendes et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
                History
                : 19 August 2010
                : 3 March 2011
                Page count
                Pages: 10
                Categories
                Research Article
                Evidence-Based Healthcare/Health Services Research and Economics
                Evidence-Based Healthcare/Quality and Safety in Medical Practice
                Public Health and Epidemiology/Health Services Research and Economics

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article