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

dc.contributor.authorGoodyear-Smith, Felicity
dc.contributor.authorBazemore, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorCoffman, Megan
dc.contributor.authorFortier, Richard
dc.contributor.authorHowe, Amanda
dc.contributor.authorKidd, Michael
dc.contributor.authorPhillips, Robert L.
dc.contributor.authorRouleau, Katherine
dc.contributor.authorvan Weel, Chris
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-04T01:57:21Z
dc.date.available2020-12-04T01:57:21Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.date.updated2020-07-19T08:31:17Z
dc.description.abstractIntroduction 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.en_AU
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_AU
dc.identifier.issn2059-7908en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/216694
dc.language.isoen_AUen_AU
dc.provenanceThis is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.en_AU
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_AU
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019en_AU
dc.rights.licenseCreative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) licenseen_AU
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en_AU
dc.sourceBMJ Global Healthen_AU
dc.titleResearch gaps in the organisation of primary healthcare in low-income and middle-income countries and ways to address them: a mixed-methods approachen_AU
dc.typeJournal articleen_AU
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Accessen_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage11en_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage1en_AU
local.contributor.affiliationGoodyear-Smith, Felicity, University of Aucklanden_AU
local.contributor.affiliationBazemore, Andrew, Robert Graham Centeren_AU
local.contributor.affiliationCoffman, Megan, Robert Graham Center Policy Studies in Family Medicine & Primary Careen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationFortier, Richard, University of Aucklanden_AU
local.contributor.affiliationHowe, Amanda, University of East Angliaen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationKidd, Michael, University of Torontoen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationPhillips, Robert L., American Board of Family Medicineen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationRouleau, Katherine, University of Torontoen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationVan Weel, Chris, College of Health and Medicine, ANUen_AU
local.contributor.authoruidVan Weel, Chris, u5384627en_AU
local.description.notesImported from ARIESen_AU
local.identifier.absfor111717 - Primary Health Careen_AU
local.identifier.absseo920204 - Evaluation of Health Outcomesen_AU
local.identifier.ariespublicationu5786633xPUB1715en_AU
local.identifier.citationvolume4en_AU
local.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001482en_AU
local.identifier.thomsonIDWOS:000500407900007
local.publisher.urlhttp://gh.bmj.com/en_AU
local.type.statusPublished Versionen_AU

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
01_Goodyear-Smith_Research_gaps_in_the_2019.pdf
Size:
875.65 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format