MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384282511 · doi:10.1101/2023.07.13.23292645

Primary Healthcare Innovations in India: Synthesis from a systematic review

2023· review· en· W4384282511 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Chaudhuri, Vijayashree Yellappa, Neha Parikh, Ranjana N Rao, Nilakshi Biswas, Nandini Agarwal, Catherine Cove, Bhumika Nanda

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersTata Trusts
KeywordsCINAHLPsychological interventionHealth careSystematic reviewMedicineDeclarationPopulationHealth technologyNursingCochrane LibraryMEDLINERandomized controlled trialFamily medicineEconomic growthPolitical scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Primary healthcare (PHC) serves as the first point of contact for individuals seeking care. However, the PHC system in India faces significant systemic challenges compounded by multiple disease burdens the population faces. The Astana Declaration highlighted the importance of building a comprehensive and resilient healthcare system, focused on an individual rather than a disease. While Health and Wellness Centers (HWCs) are being developed towards universal health coverage (UHC) as a part of the Ayushman Bharat - Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY), several gaps still exist. A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The study involved developing a theoretical PHC framework, creating search strategies across databases (like MEDLINE, OVID, and CINAHL), and screening them. The review encompassed health innovations and included studies from 1990 to 2019. Relevant quantitative and geographically focused study designs were included, focusing on innovations that improve the efficiency, effectiveness, quality, sustainability, and economy of primary care services. A total of 239 impact evaluations were included and analyzed. The majority of these evaluations were journal articles (237), with one report and one working paper. The impact evaluations primarily focused on single innovations, although there were also 10 multilayered studies and 7 studies with multiple arms. Out of the 239 innovations, 24 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in controlled settings. The studies predominantly took place in rural communities (53%), followed by mixed urban-rural, urban, and tribal communities. Foundations were primary funders (35.6%), with community health worker-delivered interventions, digital service innovations, and supportive mentoring programs being the key supported interventions. This systematic review offers valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities in India’s PHC system. The findings can inform policymakers, researchers, and healthcare stakeholders in improving primary healthcare delivery and addressing the evolving healthcare landscape in India.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207