4.6 Review

Rapid methods for identifying barriers and solutions to improve access to community health services: a scoping review protocol

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066804

Keywords

health policy; statistics & research methods; health services accessibility; qualitative research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to identify rapid methods (<14 days) used to elicit barriers and potential solutions to accessing community health services. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed literature, conferences, and to WHO policymakers working in this field.
Objectives Low attendance rates for community health services reflect important barriers that prevent people from receiving the care they need. Services and health systems that seek to advance Universal Health Coverage need to understand and act on these factors. Formal qualitative research is the best way to elicit barriers and identify potential solutions, however traditional approaches take months to complete and can be very expensive. We aim to map the methods that have been used to rapidly elicit barriers to accessing community health services and identify potential solutions.Methods and analysis We will search MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Global Health for empirical studies that use rapid methods (<14 days) to elicit barriers and potential solutions from intended service beneficiaries. We will exclude hospital-based and 100% remotely delivered services. We will include studies conducted in any country from 1978 to present. We will not limit by language. Two reviewers will independently perform screening and data extraction, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We will tabulate the different approaches used and present data on time, skills and financial requirements for each approach, as well as the governance framework and any strengths and weaknesses presented by the study authors. We will follow Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review guidance and report the review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. We will share our findings in the peer-reviewed literature, at conferences, and with WHO policymakers working in this space.

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