Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Research gaps in the organisation of primary healthcare in low-income and middle-income countries and ways to address them: a mixed-methods approach

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Goodyear-Smith, Felicity
Bazemore, Andrew
Coffman, Megan
Fortier, Richard
Howe, Amanda
Kidd, Michael
Phillips, Robert L.
Rouleau, Katherine
van Weel, Chris

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

BMJ Publishing Group

Abstract

Introduction Since the Alma-Ata Declaration 40 years ago, primary healthcare (PHC) has made great advances, but there is insufficient research on models of care and outcomes-particularly for low-income and middleincome countries (LMICs). Systematic efforts to identify these gaps and develop evidence-based strategies for improvement in LMICs has been lacking. We report on a global effort to identify and prioritise the knowledge needs of PHC practitioners and researchers in LMICs about PHC organisation. Methods Three-round modified Delphi using web-based surveys. PHC practitioners and academics and policymakers from LMICs sampled from global networks. First round (pre-Delphi survey) collated possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about organisation. Responses were independently coded, collapsed and synthesised. Round 2 (Delphi round 1) invited panellists to rate importance of each question. In round 3 (Delphi round 2), panellists ranked questions into final order of importance. Literature review conducted on 36 questions and gap map generated. Results Diverse range of practitioners and academics in LMICs from all global regions generated 744 questions for PHC organisation. In round 2, 36 synthesised questions on organisation were rated. In round 3, the top 16 questions were ranked to yield four prioritised questions in each area. Literature reviews confirmed gap in evidence on prioritised questions in LMICs. Conclusion In line with the 2018 Astana Declaration, this mixed-methods study has produced a unique list of essential gaps in our knowledge of how best to organise PHC, priority-ordered by LMIC expert informants capable of shaping their mitigation. Research teams in LMIC have developed implementation plans to answer the top four ranked research questions.

Description

Keywords

Citation

Source

BMJ Global Health

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

Open Access

License Rights

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license

Restricted until

abcd