Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 41788078

Integration of ear and hearing care services in low- and middle-income health systems: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.

Carmen de Kock·Lucy Gilson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Hearing loss is a global public health burden and mostly affects those living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One approach to address ongoing challenges is the World Health Organization's recommendation for the integration of ear and hearing care (EHC) services into healthcare packages. However, little is known about EHC integration approaches, particularly in LMICs additionally, these approaches have not been investigated through a health systems lens. This qualitative review aimed to describe the various approaches to the EHC service integration in LMICs and to identify enabling and constraining factors. We reviewed 17 studies, with a focus on LMICs, using adaptations of the Valentijn integration and World Health Organization EHC frameworks, following the PRISMA guidelines. Our investigation showed that most integration approaches were at micro or individual level. Enabling factors for integration of EHC services were training, mentorship, collaboration, technology, inclusion of EHC in healthcare packages and investment in EHC services. Barriers were challenges with training, facilities and equipment, policy implementation and resourcing of EHC services. We further described factors influencing healthcare seeking behaviour and the use of integrated EHC services, such as access and ability to pay, referral systems and communication and awareness. This study describes the complex nature of EHC integration and ways to support integration. Key considerations are the level of integration, training to address workforce issues and factors influencing service utilisation as we work towards health system strengthening.

Explore related subjects

HumansDeveloping CountriesResource-Limited SettingsDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedHearing LossQualitative ResearchHealth Services AccessibilityEar and hearing care integrationbarriersenablershealth system strengtheninglow-resource settingsJournal ArticleSystematic ReviewResearch Support, N.I.H., ExtramuralResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Carmen de Kock, Lucy Gilson. 2026-03-06. Integration of ear and hearing care services in low- and middle-income health systems: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2026.2633877

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Developing Countries subjectHealth Services Accessibility subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectSystematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Access to palliative care in rural settings: A mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Rural populations experience persistent inequities in access to palliative care. Existing evidence often describes individual barriers separately, with less attention to how access breaks down across the care pathway or how different service configurations shape access. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise evidence on access to palliative care in rural settings and examine how access barriers, service models, and implementation conditions interact across the care pathway. METHODS: A mixed-methods systematic review using a convergent integrated approach searched nine databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, CNKI, WanFang, SinoMed) from inception to 15 March 2026, supplemented by hand-searching. Eligible studies were primary qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies on access to palliative care for adults in rural or non-urban settings. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were mapped to the Levesque access framework, analysed using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and integrated through mixed-methods synthesis, with additional coding of service models. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included, of which 26 were conducted in high-income countries and eight in low- and middle-income countries. Service configurations included specialist or hospice-oriented care, generalist or primary-care-oriented care, mixed specialist-generalist models, home-based and caregiver-centred care, nurse-coordinated services, telehealth-supported care, and community or implementation-oriented approaches. Access broke down cumulatively across four interdependent stages: recognition, entry, reach, and use and continuity, with affordability constraining every stage. Recognition was limited by low awareness, poor service visibility, and delayed identification of need. Entry was shaped by stigma, trust, family expectations, and unclear referral processes. Reach was constrained by distance, transport, workforce shortages, limited specialist capacity, and weak infrastructure. Use and continuity were affected by fragmented coordination, weak transitions, unstable follow-up, and reliance on family caregivers. Access problems varied across service configurations. Evidence on service innovations was methodologically less certain, and the overall evidence base remained concentrated in high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Access to palliative care in rural settings is best understood as a pathway and service-configuration problem rather than simply a deficit in service availability. Improving access requires earlier recognition, clearer referral routes, stronger specialist-generalist and nursing links, better support for family caregivers, and greater attention to affordability, continuity, and rural settings with limited resources. REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD420261340783.

Health Services Accessibility↗
PubMed2026

Measuring economic efficiency in adult intensive care units: A systematic review of methods, metrics, and evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Intensive care units (ICUs) consume substantial hospital resources, yet "efficiency" is inconsistently defined and measured. This study systematically reviewed how economic efficiency has been conceptualised and quantified in adult ICUs and appraised the quality of evidence. METHODS: Following PRISMA 2020 and a PROSPERO-registered protocol (CRD420251107866), we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Web of Science (2000-August 2025), plus global grey sources. Eligible studies explicitly defined efficiency and reported an efficiency metric/model linking ICU inputs (e.g., staff, beds/capacity, time, consumables, or costs) to outputs/outcomes (e.g., throughput/discharges, length of stay/resource use, risk-adjusted mortality). Dual independent screening and extraction were performed. Study quality was appraised using MMAT, and findings were synthesised narratively (SWiM), given heterogeneity. RESULTS: 39 studies (2001-2025) from 17 countries were included, all from high-income or upper-middle-income settings. Four methodological families were identified: (1) frontier modelling (predominantly DEA; occasional SFA/RFDH), (2) benchmarking indicators (risk-adjusted mortality and LOS/resource-use ratios; "efficiency matrix" quadrant classification), (3) cost-outcome evaluations, and (4) operational/process metrics. Across families, variation in decision-making units, input/output selection, and risk adjustment limited comparability; long-term and patient-reported outcomes were absent, and equity considerations were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: ICU efficiency research is feasible but fragmented and often methodologically limited. Standardised definitions, validated risk adjustment, uncertainty quantification, and inclusion of patient-centred and equity-relevant outcomes are needed before efficiency metrics can reliably inform value-based decision making.

Intensive Care Units↗
PubMed2026

Lifestyle interventions to prevent gestational and type 2 diabetes among migrant women from low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Migrant women from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) living in high-income settings experience disproportionately high risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This review aimed to identify and synthesise culturally adapted lifestyle interventions for preventing or managing GDM and T2DM among migrant women from LMICs, focusing on intervention components, cultural adaptation strategies, and behavioural and metabolic outcomes. Five databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central) were searched using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 guidelines. Eligible studies included experimental designs involving lifestyle interventions delivered to migrant women from LMICs in high-income countries, reporting outcomes related to GDM or T2DM targeting behaviour change. Data were synthesised narratively; study quality was appraised using RoB2 for RCTs and a structured narrative approach for non-randomised designs. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 28 to 641 participants. Intervention duration varied from 6 weeks to 12 months. Most interventions incorporated atleast one culturally tailored component, such as bilingual delivery, culturally adapted dietary education, or community-based engagement. Improvements were reported across dietary behaviours, physical activity, glycaemic measures, or diabetes-related knowledge; however, effect sizes were modest and inconsistent. Interventions combining dietary modification, physical activity, and culturally adapted delivery demonstrated greater improvements than exercise-only or digital-only programmes. Overall certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate. Culturally adapted, multi-component lifestyle interventions show promise for improving behavioural and metabolic outcomes among migrant women from LMICs; however, the evidence base remains limited.

Humans↗