Evidence gap map of performance measurement and management in primary care delivery systems in low- and middle-income countries – Study protocol

Abstract

Background. For the last two decades there has been growing interest in governmental and global health stakeholders about the role that performance measurement and management systems can play for the production of high-quality and safely delivered primary care services. Despite recognition and interest, the gaps in evidence in this field of research and practice in low- and middle-income countries remain poorly characterized. This study will develop an evidence gap map in the area of performance management in primary care delivery systems in low- and middle-income countries. Methods. The evidence gap map will follow the methodology developed by 3Ie, the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, to systematically map evidence and research gaps. The process starts with the development of the scope by creating an evidence-informed framework that helps identify the interventions and outcomes of relevance as well as help define inclusion and exclusion criteria. A search strategy is then developed to guide the systematic search of the literature, covering the following databases: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CAB Global Health (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Cochrane Library, Scopus (Elsevier), and Econlit (Ovid). Sources of grey literature are also searched. Studies that meet the inclusion criteria are systematically coded, extracting data on intervention, outcome, measures, context, geography, equity, and study design. Systematic reviews are also critically appraised using an existing standard checklist. Impact evaluations are not appraised but will be coded according to study design. The process of map-building ends with the creation of an evidence gap map graphic that displays the available evidence according to the intervention and outcome framework of interest. Discussion. Implications arising from the evidence map will be discussed in a separate paper that will summarize findings and make recommendations for the development of a prioritized research agenda.

Evidence gap map of performance measurement and management in primary healthcare systems in low-income and middle-income countries

“…In completing this research, we followed the evidence-mapping methods developed by the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) 26 27. Such methods were outlined in detail in the published study protocol7 and are summarised below.…”

“…This paper reports one of several evidence gap maps (EGMs) commissioned to inform the launch of a PHC Research Consortium that delivers policy-relevant research in support of improving the performance and quality of health systems in LMICs 6. Informed by systematic approaches to evidence synthesis and review, EGMs were developed to systematically map evidence and research gaps on broad topic areas, describe the characteristics of the available evidence and inform the design of future research 7. In this paper, we summarise the framework and scope for a performance measurement and management (PMM) EGM, the methods and results, and implications for research.…”

Performance Measurement Knowledge: A Comprehensive Literature Review

“…After thoroughly examining the existing literature, a suggested research direction is presented and keep improving (Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. 1995). Context factors, or the environment or setting in which the proposed process of change is to be implemented can exert influence through interactions that occur at multiple levels (individual, interpersonal, organizational, community and societal) within the primary care system Munar et al, 2018).…”

Development of an Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) of interventions to increase smoking cessation: A study protocol

“…Thus, it helps the audience, including non-specialists, to obtain a visual overview of the relevant evidence on the topic and to understand what evidence is missing. Therefore, EGM is emerging as a chosen tool for researchers in many fields because of its usefulness in prioritising research and translating it into practice and policy 25,26 .…”