Evidence gap map of performance measurement and management in primary care delivery systems in low- and middle-income countries – Study protocol: version 2; peer review: 2 approved

• Published in: Gates open research 2018-11
• Main Authors: Munar, Wolfgang, Snilstveit, Birte, Stevenson, Jennifer, Biswas, Nilakshi, Eyers, John, Butera, Gisela, Baffour, Theresa, Aranda, Ligia E
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Health services; International finance; Low income groups; Performance evaluation; Performance management; Primary care; Quality of care
• ISSN: 2572-4754; 2572-4754
• DOI: 10.12688/gatesopenres.12826.2

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.