This article is the fourth in a series on the systematic review from the Joanna Briggs Institute, an international collaborative supporting evidence-based practice in nursing, medicine, and allied health fields. The purpose of the series is to describe how to conduct a systematic review-one step at a time. This article focuses on the study selection and critical appraisal steps in the process. These steps ensure that the review produces valid results capable of providing a useful basis for informing policy, clinical practice, and future research.

In 2012, a working group was established to review and enhance the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for conducting systematic review of evidence from economic evaluations addressing a question(s) about health intervention cost-effectiveness. The objective is to present the outcomes of the working group. The group conducted three activities to inform the new guidance: review of literature on the utility/futility of systematic reviews of economic evaluations and consideration of its implications for updating the existing methodology; assessment of the critical appraisal tool in the existing guidance against criteria that promotes validity in economic evaluation research and two other commonly used tools; and a workshop. The debate in the literature on the limitations/value of systematic review of economic evidence cautions that systematic reviews of economic evaluation evidence are unlikely to generate one size fits all answers to questions about the cost-effectiveness of interventions and their comparators. Informed by this finding, the working group adjusted the framing of the objectives definition in the existing JBI methodology. The shift is away from defining the objective as to determine one cost-effectiveness measure toward summarizing study estimates of cost-effectiveness and informed by consideration of the included study characteristics (patient, setting, intervention component, etc.), identifying conditions conducive to lowering costs and maximizing health benefits. The existing critical appraisal tool was included in the new guidance. The new guidance includes the recommendation that a tool designed specifically for the purpose of appraising model-based studies be used together with the generic appraisal tool for economic evaluations assessment to evaluate model-based evaluations. The guidance produced by the group offers reviewers guidance for each step of the systematic review process, which are the same steps followed in JBI reviews of other types of evidence. The updated JBI guidance will be useful for researchers wanting to synthesize evidence about economic questions, either as stand-alone reviews or part of comprehensive or mixed method evidence reviews. Although the updated methodology produced by the work of the working group has improved the JBI guidance for systematic reviews of economic evaluations, there are areas where further work is required. These include adjusting the critical appraisal tool to separate out questions addressing intervention cost and effectiveness measurement; providing more explicit guidance for assessing generalizability of findings; and offering a more robust method for evidence synthesis that facilitates achieving the more ambitious review objectives.

Improving use of family planning services is key to improving maternal health in Africa, and provision of quality of care in family planning services is critical to support higher levels of contraceptive uptake. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the available evidence on factors determining the quality of care in family planning services in Africa. Quantitative and qualitative studies undertaken in Africa, published in English, in grey and commercial literature, between 1990 and 2015 were considered. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using standardized tools. Findings from the quantitative studies were summarized using narrative and tables. Client satisfaction was used to assess the quality of care in family planning services in the quantitative component of the review. Meta-aggregation was used to synthesize the qualitative study findings. From 4334 records, 11 studies (eight quantitative, three qualitative) met the review eligibility criteria. The review found that quality of care was influenced by client, provider and facility factors, and structural and process aspects of the facilities. Client’s waiting time, provider competency, provision/prescription of injectable methods, maintaining privacy and confidentiality were the most commonly identified process factors. The quality of stock inventory was the most commonly identified structural factor. The quality of care was also positively associated with privately-owned facilities. The qualitative synthesis revealed additional factors including access related factors such as ‘pre-requisites to be fulfilled by the clients and cost of services, provider workload, and providers’ behaviour. There is limited evidence on factors determining quality of care in family planning services in Africa that shows quality of care is influenced by multiple factors. The evidence suggests that lowering access barriers and avoiding unnecessary pre-requisites for taking contraceptive methods are important to improve the quality of care in family planning services. Strategies to improve provider behavior and competency are important. Moreover, strategies that minimize client waiting time and ensure client confidentiality should be implemented to ensure quality of care in family planning services. However, no strong evidence based conclusions and recommendations may be drawn from the evidence. Future studies are needed to identify the most important factors associated with quality of care in family planning services in a wider range of African countries.

Objective: To synthesise client perceptions of the unique characteristics and value of care provided in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) compared to mainstream/general practitioner services, and implications for improving access to quality, appropriate primary health care for Indigenous Australians. Method: Standardised systematic review methods with modification informed by ethical and methodological considerations in research involving Indigenous Australians. Results: Perceived unique valued characteristics of ACCHOs were: 1) accessibility, facilitated by ACCHOs welcoming social spaces and additional services; 2) culturally safe care; and 3) appropriate care, responsive to holistic needs. Conclusion: Provider-client relationships characterised by shared understanding of clients' needs, Indigenous staff, and relationships between clients who share the same culture, are central to ACCHO clients' perceptions of ACCHOs' unique value. The client perceptions provide insights about how ACCHOs address socio-economic factors that contribute to high levels of chronic disease in Indigenous communities, why mainstream PHC provider care cannot substitute for ACCHO care, and how to improve accessibility and quality of care in mainstream providers. Implications for public health: To increase utilisation of PHC services in Indigenous Australian communities, and help close the gaps between the health status of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, Indigenous community leaders and Australian governments should prioritise implementing effective initiatives to support quality health care provision by ACCHOs.