IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0005852.html

Implementation strategies and economic considerations for point-of-care ultrasound in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A scoping review

Author

Listed:
  • Grace W Banda-Katha
  • Timothy Kachitosi
  • Henry C Mwandumba
  • Victor Mwapasa
  • Lucky G Ngwira
  • Benno Kreuels
  • Paul Rahden

Abstract

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly adopted as a diagnostic tool in low- and middle-income countries due to its accessibility and comparatively low costs. This review aims to synthesise successful implementation strategies for POCUS and evaluate existing literature on its associated cost implications. We conducted a scoping review following recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute’s manual for evidence synthesis and the PRISMA-Scoping review guidelines. The search included five databases (PubMed, Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL) identifying original research published before 30th of April 2025 addressing POCUS implementation or economic evaluation in low- and middle-income countries. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the associated Expert Recommendation for Implementation Change (CFIR-ERIC) matching tool were applied to assess implementation strategies which improve implementation processes. Six studies focusing on implementation strategies were identified, five of which were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. An additional six economic evaluations were included, mainly from Africa and South Asia. Implementation studies were primarily small-scale, single-country interventions with infrequent use of needs assessments prior to implementation and limited long-term follow-up. Common barriers included limited infrastructure, equipment shortages and delays in delivering intervention services. The CFIR–ERIC tool identified supportive strategies such as thorough planning, close collaborations involving several stakeholders, expanded training efforts and infrastructure, and continuous re-evaluations of interventions. Economic evaluations were methodologically diverse, often indication-specific and focused on cost analysis. Evidence on POCUS implementation and economic evaluation in low- and middle-income countries was diverse. Strategies such as thorough planning, close and equitable partnerships, and continuous re-evaluation and adaptation of interventions were identified as supportive of successful implementation. While potential cost savings to health systems have been reported, future efforts should prioritise comprehensive evaluations of POCUS implementation programmes that incorporate patient-centred economic evaluations assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Grace W Banda-Katha & Timothy Kachitosi & Henry C Mwandumba & Victor Mwapasa & Lucky G Ngwira & Benno Kreuels & Paul Rahden, 2026. "Implementation strategies and economic considerations for point-of-care ultrasound in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A scoping review," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0005852
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005852
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0005852
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0005852&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0005852?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0005852. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.