1. Outcomes for the comparison between supervision and no supervision.
| Outcomes | Outcome measurement | Arms | N | Pre | Change | P‐values | Review Authors' Interpretation | Comments |
| Providers practice | ||||||||
| Kafle 1995 ‐ I: supervision and monitoring with feedback. C: no supervision. | ||||||||
| Prescribing practice (13 indicators) Scores in % | Patient and facility records | I | 21(clinics) | 26.9% | +13.6% | 3 of 13 indicators showed significant improvements (P > 0.05, I vs C) | Some evidence that supervision improves prescribing practices | Indicator shown corresponds to "% prescriptions according to guidelines", as an example. |
| C | 21 (clinics) | 29.9% | ‐6.8% | |||||
| Stanback 2007 ‐ I: training of providers + cascade training package + 1 supervisory visit. C: same without supervisory visit. | ||||||||
| Provider practice in 34 items relating to family planning practices. Overall score in % | Provider questionnaire | I | 48 (clinics) | 48.8% | +22.8% | 0.004 (multivariate analysis) | Some evidence supervision improves provider practice | Addition of supervision significantly improved provider xºpractice scores at P < 0.05. |
| C | 44 (clinics) | 47.5% | +16.1% | |||||
| Trap 2001 ‐ I: two supervisory visits on adherence to guidelines and stock management. C: no supervision. | ||||||||
| Adherence to standard treatment guidelines (drug use). Overall score in %. | Patient records | I | 23 (health facilities) | 54% | +19% | 0.34 (I vs C) | Some evidence that supervision improves adherence to treatment guidelines | Overall score not significantly different at P > 0.05 but 3 out of 4 conditions showed significant improvements at P <0.05 |
| C | 18 (health facilities) | 73% | ‐10% | |||||
| Provider knowledge | ||||||||
| Kafle 1995 ‐ I: supervision and monitoring with feedback. C: no supervision. | ||||||||
| Prescriber knowledge about 8 diseases (19 indicators). Scores in % | Questionnaire | I | 21 (clinics) | NA | NA | Not shown. | No evidence that supervision improves provider knowledge | Only post intervention data gathered showing scores in 3 of the 19 indicators higher in the intervention group, 13 were higher in the control group and 3 were the same. |
| C | 21 (clinics) | NA | NA | |||||
| Stanback 2007 ‐ I: training of providers + cascade training package + 1 supervisory visit. C: same without supervisory visit. | ||||||||
| Provider knowledge on 19 items about family planning. Overall score in % | Provider questionnaire | I | 48 (clinics) | 59.7% | +19.9% | 0.02 (multivariate analysis) | Some evidence that supervision improves provider knowledge and behaviour | Addition of supervision significantly improved overall provider knowledge scores at P < 0.05. Scores for 10 out of 19 individual indicators provided, only one shows a significant improvement at P < 0.05. |
| C | 44 (clinics) | 59.9% | +12.6% | |||||
| Other | ||||||||
| Trap 2001 ‐ I: two supervisory visits on adherence to guidelines and stock management. C: no supervision. | ||||||||
| Performance on drug and medical supplies stock management (9 indicators). Overall score in %. | Health facility records | I | 21 (health facilities) | 56% | +7% | <0.001 (I vs C) | Some evidence that supervision improves stock management of drugs | Significant improvement in performance on drug stock management compared to the control (P < 0.05). 6 out of 9 individual indicators showed significant improvements when compared to the control (P < 0.05) |
C: Control; I: Intervention.