Back

Care Delivery Gap framework: a proof-of-concept patient-reported measure of guideline-referenced care-process omissions in sickle cell disease

Agbalalah, T.; Rowaiye, A.

2026-06-16 hematology
10.64898/2026.06.08.26355133 medRxiv
Show abstract

Abstract Background:Sickle cell disease (SCD) is concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa, where delivery of guideline-referenced care remains challenging. Current evaluation approaches rely largely on access indicators and clinical outcomes, which do not directly measure care delivery. We developed the Care Delivery Gap (CDG) framework, a patient-reported approach for identifying care-process omissions, and conducted a proof-of-concept study to assess feasibility and explore variation across income strata. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional framework-development study involving a proof-of-concept sample of 52 individuals with SCD or caregivers recruited through clinics and moderated SCD communities across Africa, North America, and Europe between June 2025 and March 2026. The CDG framework assessed patient-reported omissions in specialist involvement, follow-up continuity, cardiovascular screening, and biochemical surveillance. Analyses were descriptive. Results: Substantial multi-domain care-process omissions were identified despite high reported healthcare engagement. Across geographic income strata, cardiovascular screening was reported by 4/35 (11%) LMIC versus 16/17 (94%) HIC participants, and regular follow-up within the preceding 12 months by 14/35 (40%) versus 16/17 (94%), respectively. High CDG scores, representing 1 omissions across three or four domains, occurred in 20/35 (57%) LMIC compared with 1/17 (6%) HIC participants. Similar disparities were observed across specialist review and vitamin B12 surveillance domains. Conclusion: A structured patient-reported framework identified multi-domain omissions in guideline-referenced SCD care, including among individuals reporting healthcare access. The divergence between access indicators and reported care delivery suggests that service contact alone may not reflect care quality. The framework provides a feasible foundation for future process-level quality measurement in high-burden settings.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.9%
2
BMJ
51 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
3
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
4
Tropical Medicine & International Health
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
5
International Journal of Epidemiology
88 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
6
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 10%
3.3%
8
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.3%
9
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.5%
10
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.5%
11
Clinical Epidemiology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
12
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
13
Public Health in Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
14
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
15
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.7%
16
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.5%
17
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
18
Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
19
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
20
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
21
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
129 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
22
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
23
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.9%
24
The American Journal of Human Genetics
234 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
25
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
26
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
27
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
68 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%