3.8 Review

Trace and evaluation systems for health services quality in rural and remote areas: a systematic review

期刊

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH-HEIDELBERG
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 127-135

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10389-017-0858-4

关键词

Rural health services; Quality trace and evaluation; Theoretical model; Framework; Systematic review

资金

  1. China Medical Board (CMB) [CMB 10-029]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [16LZUJBWTD013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To provide a systematic review of the existing theory, framework, systems and instruments for tracing and evaluating quality in rural health services. Subjects and methods We searched six electronic databases up to March 2016. Observational studies of quality assessment of rural health services using theoretical models were included. Ekman's scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results A total of 18 studies, published between 2001 and 2015, met the inclusion criteria. The corresponding authors for most of them (7, 44%) are from Chinese institutions and three (3, 17%) from Australian institutions. Five studies (28%) focused on township hospitals. Primary health care quality was reported in five studies (28%), followed by clinical service in four (22%). More than half of the studies (61%) were considered of high quality, and the remainder was of moderate quality. These studies applied 16 theoretical systems, including the model/pattern (4, 25%), method/tool (7, 44%) and framework of the theory (5, 31%). Most of the theoretical models (14, 88%) obtained positive observations. In addition, the conceptual model (6, 36%) and TOPSIS method (2, 13%) were more frequently reported. Conclusion Although most of the current studies were considered to have high-quality and positive results, there were limitations in the number of publications and research on theoretical systems. The lacks of unified standards and comprehensive evaluation are important issues that need to be pointed out and resolved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据