4.6 Review

Defining measures of emergency care access in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067884

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study conducted a scoping review of the literature to understand the barriers to emergency care systems in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). They found that over 50% of annual deaths in LMICs could be prevented through access to high-quality emergency care. Although there are numerous measures of emergency care access described in the literature, a core set of measures and minimum standards are needed to ensure universal access to high-quality emergency care.
Background Over 50% of annual deaths in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) could be averted through access to high-quality emergency care. Objectives We performed a scoping review of the literature that described at least one measure of emergency care access in LMICs in order to understand relevant barriers to emergency care systems. Eligibility criteria English language studies published between 1 January 1990 and 30 December 2020, with one or more discrete measure(s) of access to emergency health services in LMICs described. Source of evidence PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and the grey literature. Charting methods A structured data extraction tool was used to identify and classify the number of 'unique' measures, and the number of times each unique measure was studied in the literature ('total' measures). Measures of access were categorised by access type, defined by Thomas and Penchansky, with further categorisation according to the 'Three Delay' model of seeking, reaching and receiving care, and the WHO's Emergency Care Systems Framework (ECSF). Results A total of 3103 articles were screened. 75 met full study inclusion. Articles were uniformly descriptive (n=75, 100%). 137 discrete measures of access were reported. Unique measures of accommodation (n=42, 30.7%) and availability (n=40, 29.2%) were most common. Measures of seeking, reaching and receiving care were 22 (16.0%), 46 (33.6%) and 69 (50.4%), respectively. According to the ECSF slightly more measures focused on prehospital care-inclusive of care at the scene and through transport to a facility (n=76, 55.4%) as compared with facility-based care (n=57, 41.6%). Conclusions Numerous measures of emergency care access are described in the literature, but many measures are overaddressed. Development of a core set of access measures with associated minimum standards are necessary to aid in ensuring universal access to high-quality emergency care in all settings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available