Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Primary care financing: a systematic assessment of research priorities in low- and middle-income countries.
Goodyear-Smith, Felicity; Bazemore, Andrew; Coffman, Megan; Fortier, Richard; Howe, Amanda; Kidd, Michael; Phillips, Robert; Rouleau, Katherine; van Weel, Chris.
Afiliação
  • Goodyear-Smith F; Department of General practice and Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Bazemore A; Robert Graham Center Policy Studies in Family Medicine & Primary Care, Washington, DC, USA.
  • Coffman M; Robert Graham Center Policy Studies in Family Medicine & Primary Care, Washington, DC, USA.
  • Fortier R; Department of General practice and Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Howe A; Department of Primary Care, University of East Anglia Norwich Medical School, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
  • Kidd M; Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Phillips R; Southgate Institute for Health, Society and Equity, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
  • Rouleau K; Research and Policy Department, the American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
  • van Weel C; Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Glob Health ; 4(Suppl 8): e001483, 2019.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31478025
INTRODUCTION: Financing of primary healthcare (PHC) is the key to the provision of equitable universal care. We aimed to identify and prioritise the perceived needs of PHC practitioners and researchers for new research in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) about financing of PHC. METHODS: Three-round expert panel consultation using web-based surveys of LMIC PHC practitioners, academics and policy-makers sampled from global networks. Iterative literature review conducted in parallel. First round (Pre-Delphi survey) elicited possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about financing. Responses were independently coded, collapsed and synthesised to two lists of questions. Round 2 (Delphi Round 1) invited panellists to rate importance of each question. In Round 3 (Delphi Round 2), panellists ranked questions in order of importance. RESULTS: A diverse range of PHC practitioners, academics and policy-makers in LMIC representing all global regions identified 479 knowledge gaps as potentially critical to improving PHC financing. Round 2 provided 31 synthesised questions on financing for rating. The top 16 were ranked in Round 3e to produce four prioritised research questions. CONCLUSIONS: This novel exercise created an expansive and prioritised list of critical knowledge gaps in PHC financing research questions. This offers valuable guidance to global supporters of primary care evaluation and implementation, including research funders and academics seeking research priorities. The source and context specificity of this research, informed by LMIC practitioners and academics on a global and local basis, should increase the likelihood of local relevance and eventual success in implementing the findings.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Temas: ECOS / Aspectos_gerais / Financiamentos_gastos Bases de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Glob Health Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Nova Zelândia

Texto completo: 1 Temas: ECOS / Aspectos_gerais / Financiamentos_gastos Bases de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Glob Health Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Nova Zelândia