Is primary care ready for a potential new public health emergency in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, now subsided?

INTRODUCTION: The lingering burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care clinicians and practices poses a public health emergency for the United States. This study uses clinician-reported data to examine changes in primary care demand and capacity. METHODS: From March 2020 to March 2022, 36 electronic surveys were fielded among primary care clinicians responding to survey invitations as posted on listservs and identified through social media and crowd sourcing. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on both closed- and open-ended survey questions. RESULTS: An average of 937 respondents per survey represented family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine, geriatrics, and other specialties. Responses reported increases in patient health burden, including worsening chronic care management and increasing volume and complexity. A higher frequency of dental- and eyesight-related issues was noted by respondents, as was a substantial increase in mental or emotional health needs. Respondents also noted increased demand, "record high" wait times, and struggles to keep up with patient needs and the higher volume of patient questions. Frequent qualitative statements highlighted the mismatch of patient needs with practice capacity. Staffing shortages and the inability to fill open clinical positions impaired clinicians' ability to meet patient needs and a substantial proportion of respondents indicated an intention to leave the profession or knew someone who had. CONCLUSION: These data signal an urgent need to take action to support the ability of primary care to meet ongoing patient and population health care needs.

Health facility management and primary health care performance in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care is a critical foundation of high-quality health systems. Health facility management has been studied in high-income countries, but there are significant measurement gaps about facility management and primary health care performance in low and middle-income countries. A primary health care facility management evaluation tool (PRIME-Tool) was initially piloted in Ghana where better facility management was associated with higher performance on select primary health care outcomes such as essential drug availability, trust in providers, ease of following a provider's advice, and overall patient-reported quality rating. In this study, we sought to understand health facility management within Uganda's decentralized primary health care system. METHODS: We administered and analyzed a cross-sectional household and health facility survey conducted in Uganda in 2019, assessing facility management using the PRIME-Tool. RESULTS: Better facility management was associated with better essential drug availability but not better performance on measures of stocking equipment. Facilities with better PRIME-Tool management scores trended towards better performance on a number of experiential quality measures. We found significant disparities in the management performance of primary health care facilities. In particular, patients with greater wealth and education and those living in urban areas sought care at facilities that performed better on management. Private facilities and hospitals performed better on the management index than public facilities and health centers and clinics. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that investments in stronger facility management in Uganda may strengthen key aspects of facility readiness such as essential drug availability and potentially could affect experiential quality of care. Nevertheless, the stark disparities demonstrate that Uganda policymakers need to target investments strategically in order to improve primary health care equitably across socioeconomic status and geography. Moreover, other low and middle-income countries may benefit from the use of the PRIME-Tool to rapidly assess facility management with the goal of understanding and improving primary health care performance.

Measuring Graduate Medical Education Outcomes to Honor the Social Contract.

The graduate medical education (GME) system is heavily subsidized by the public in return for producing physicians who meet society's needs. Under the terms of this implicit social contract, decisions about how this funding is allocated are deferred to the individual training sites. Institutions receiving public funding face potential conflicts of interest, which have at times prioritized institutional purposes and needs over societal needs, highlighting that there is little public accountability for how such funding is used. The cost and institutional burden of assessing many fundamental GME outcomes, such as specialty, geographic physician distribution, training-imprinted cost behaviors, and populations served, could be mitigated as data sources and methods for assessing GME outcomes and guiding training improvement already exist. This new capacity to assess system-level outcomes could help institutions and policymakers strategically address the greatest public needs. Measurement of educational outcomes can also be used to guide training improvement at every level of the educational system (i.e., the individual trainee, individual teaching institution, and collective GME system levels). There are good examples of institutions, states, and training consortia that are already assessing and using GME outcomes in these ways. The ultimate outcome could be a GME system that better meets the needs of society and better honors what is now only an implicit social contract.

Trends in Outpatient Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Implications for Primary Care, 2000 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Despite the central role of primary care in improving health system performance, there are little recent data on how use of primary care and specialists has evolved over time and its implications for the range of care coordination needed in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in outpatient care delivery and the implications for primary care provider (PCP) care coordination. DESIGN: Descriptive, repeated, cross-sectional study using Medicare claims from 2000 to 2019, with direct standardization used to control for changes in beneficiary characteristics over time. SETTING: Traditional fee-for-service Medicare. PATIENTS: 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries. MEASUREMENTS: Annual counts of outpatient visits and procedures, the number of distinct physicians seen, and the number of other physicians seen by a PCP's assigned Medicare patients. RESULTS: The proportion of Medicare beneficiaries with any PCP visit annually only slightly increased from 61.2% in 2000 to 65.7% in 2019. The mean annual number of primary care office visits per beneficiary also changed little from 2000 to 2019 (2.99 to 3.00), although the mean number of PCPs seen increased from 0.89 to 1.21 (36.0% increase). In contrast, the mean annual number of visits to specialists increased 20% from 4.05 to 4.87, whereas the mean number of unique specialists seen increased 34.2% from 1.63 to 2.18. The proportion of beneficiaries seeing 5 or more physicians annually increased from 17.5% to 30.1%. In 2000, a PCP's Medicare patient panel saw a median of 52 other physicians (interquartile range, 23 to 87), increasing to 95 (interquartile range, 40 to 164) in 2019. LIMITATION: Data were limited to Medicare beneficiaries and, because of the use of a 20% sample, may underestimate the number of other physicians seen across a PCP's entire panel. CONCLUSION: Outpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries has shifted toward more specialist care received from more physicians without increased primary care contact. This represents a substantial expansion of the coordination burden faced by PCPs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Predictors of patient-reported quality of care in low- and middle-income countries: a four-country survey of person-centered care.

BACKGROUND: Person-centeredness is a foundation of high-quality health systems but is poorly measured in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We piloted an online survey of four LMICs to identify the prevalence and correlates of excellent patient-reported quality of care (QOC). OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to investigate the examine people's overall ratings of care quality in relation to their experiences seeking care in their respective health systems as well as individual-, provider- and facility-level predictors. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional online survey using Random Domain Intercept Technology to collect a sample of random internet users across India, Kenya, Mexico and Nigeria in November 2016. The primary outcome was patient-reported QOC. Covariates included age, gender, level of education, urban/rural residence, person for whom care was sought, type of provider seen, public or private sector status of the health facility and type of facility. The exposure was an index of health system responsiveness based on a framework from the World Health Organization. We used descriptive statistics to determine the prevalence of excellent patient-reported QOC and multivariable Poisson regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for predictors of excellent patient-reported quality. RESULTS: Fourteen thousand and eight people completed the survey (22.6% completion rate). Survey respondents tended to be young, male, well-educated and urban-dwelling, reflective of the demographic of the internet-using population. Four thousand one and ninety-one (29.9%) respondents sought care in the prior 6 months. Of those, 21.8% rated their QOC as excellent. The highest proportion of respondents gave the top rating for wait time (44.6%), while the lowest proportion gave the top rating for facility cleanliness (21.7%). In an adjusted analysis, people who experienced the highest level of health system responsiveness were significantly more likely to report excellent QOC compared to those who did not (aPR 8.61, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 7.50, 9.89). In the adjusted model, urban-dwelling individuals were less likely to report excellent quality compared to rural-dwelling individuals (aPR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.99). People who saw community health workers (aPR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.67) and specialists (aPR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.50) were more likely to report excellent quality than those who saw primary care providers. High perceived respect from the provider or staff was most highly associated with excellent ratings of quality, while ratings of wait time corresponded the least. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported QOC is low in four LMICs, even among a well-educated, young population of internet users. Better health system responsiveness may be associated with better ratings of care quality. Improving person-centered care will be an important component of building high-quality health systems in these LMICs.

Redeployment of Health Care Workers in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study of Health System Leaders' Strategies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the strategies used and critical considerations among an international sample of hospital leaders when mobilizing human resources in response to the clinical demands associated with the COVID-19 pandemic surge. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, qualitative research study designed to investigate strategies used by health system leaders from around the world when mobilizing human resources in response to the global COVD-19 pandemic. Prospective interviewees were identified through nonprobability and purposive sampling methods from May to July 2020. The primary outcomes were the critical considerations, as perceived by health system leaders, when redeploying health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic determined through thematic analysis of transcribed notes. Redeployment was defined as reassigning personnel to a different location or retraining personnel for a different task. RESULTS: Nine hospital leaders from 9 hospitals in 8 health systems located in 5 countries (United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea) were interviewed. Six hospitals in 5 health systems experienced a surge of critically ill patients with COVID-19, and the remaining 3 hospitals anticipated, but did not experience, a similar surge. Seven of 8 hospitals redeployed their health care workforce, and 1 had a redeployment plan in place but did not need to use it. Thematic analysis of the interview notes identified 3 themes representing effective practices and lessons learned when preparing and executing workforce redeployment: process, leadership, and communication. Critical considerations within each theme were identified. Because of the various expertise of redeployed personnel, retraining had to be customized and a decentralized flexible strategy was implemented. There were 3 concerns regarding redeployed personnel. These included the fear of becoming infected, the concern over their skills and patient safety, and concerns regarding professional loss (such as loss of education opportunities in their chosen profession). Transparency via multiple different types of communications is important to prevent the development of doubt and rumors. CONCLUSIONS: Redeployment strategies should critically consider the process of redeploying and supporting the health care workforce, decentralized leadership that encourages and supports local implementation of system-wide plans, and communication that is transparent, regular, consistent, and informed by data.

Strengthening data collection and use for quality improvement in primary care: the case of Costa Rica.

Costa Rica is a bright spot of primary healthcare (PHC) performance, providing first-contact accessibility and continuous, comprehensive, coordinated, and patient-centered care to its citizens. Previous research hypothesized that strong data collection and use for quality improvement are central to Costa Rica's success. Using qualitative data from 40 interviews with stakeholders across the Costa Rican healthcare system, this paper maps the various data streams at the PHC level and delineates how these data are used to make decisions around insuring and improving the quality of PHC delivery. We describe four main types of PHC data: individual patient data, population health data, national healthcare delivery data, and local supplementary healthcare delivery data. In particular, we find that the Healthcare Delivery Performance Index-a ranking of the nation's 106 Health Areas using 15 quality indicators-is utilized by Health Area Directors to create quality improvement initiatives, ranging from education and coaching to optimization of care delivery and coordination. By ranking Health Areas, the Index harnesses providers' intrinsic motivation to stimulate improvement without financial incentives. We detail how a strong culture of valuing data as a tool for improving population health and robust training for personnel have enabled effective data collection and use. However, we also find that the country's complex data systems create unnecessary duplication and can inhibit efficient data use. Costa Rica's experience with data collection, analysis, and use for quality improvement hold important lessons for PHC in other public sector systems.

Estimated Effect on Life Expectancy of Alleviating Primary Care Shortages in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have reported that greater numbers of primary care physicians (PCPs) per population are associated with reduced population mortality, but the effect of increasing PCP density in areas of low density is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To estimate how alleviating PCP shortages might change life expectancy and mortality. DESIGN: Generalized additive models, mixed-effects models, and generalized estimating equations. SETTING: 3104 U.S. counties from 2010 to 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Children and adults. MEASUREMENTS: Age-adjusted life expectancy; all-cause mortality; and mortality due to cardiovascular disease, cancer, infectious disease, respiratory disease, and substance use or injury. RESULTS: Persons living in counties with less than 1 physician per 3500 persons in 2017 had a mean life expectancy that was 310.9 days shorter than for persons living in counties above that threshold. In the low-density counties (n = 1218), increasing the density of PCPs above the 1:3500 threshold would be expected to increase mean life expectancy by 22.4 days (median, 19.4 days [95% CI, 0.9 to 45.6 days]), and all such counties would require 17 651 more physicians, or about 14.5 more physicians per shortage county. If counties with less than 1 physician per 1500 persons (n = 2636) were to reach the 1:1500 threshold, life expectancy would be expected to increase by 56.3 days (median, 55.6 days [CI, 4.2 to 105.6 days]), and all such counties would require 95 754 more physicians, or about 36.3 more physicians per shortage county. LIMITATION: Some projections are based on extrapolations of the actual data. CONCLUSION: In counties with fewer PCPs per population, increases in PCP density would be expected to substantially improve life expectancy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

The Effects of a Multifaceted Intervention to Improve Care Transitions Within an Accountable Care Organization: Results of a Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Transitions from hospital to the ambulatory setting are high risk for patients in terms of adverse events, poor clinical outcomes, and readmission. OBJECTIVES: To develop, implement, and refine a multifaceted care transitions intervention and evaluate its effects on postdischarge adverse events. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two-arm, single-blind (blinded outcomes assessor), stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized clinical trial. Participants were 1,679 adult patients who belonged to one of 17 primary care practices and were admitted to a medical or surgical service at either of two participating hospitals within a pioneer accountable care organization (ACO). INTERVENTIONS: Multicomponent intervention in the 30 days following hospitalization, including inpatient pharmacist-led medication reconciliation, coordination of care between an inpatient "discharge advocate" and a primary care "responsible outpatient clinician," postdischarge phone calls, and postdischarge primary care visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was rate of postdischarge adverse events, as assessed by a 30-day postdischarge phone call and medical record review and adjudicated by two blinded physician reviewers. Secondary outcomes included preventable adverse events, new or worsening symptoms after discharge, and 30-day nonelective hospital readmission. RESULTS: Among patients included in the study, 692 were assigned to usual care and 987 to the intervention. Patients in the intervention arm had a 45% relative reduction in postdischarge adverse events (18 vs 23 events per 100 patients; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84). Significant reductions were also seen in preventable adverse events and in new or worsening symptoms, but there was no difference in readmission rates. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted intervention was associated with a significant reduction in postdischarge adverse events but no difference in 30-day readmission rates.

Implementing sustainable primary healthcare reforms: strategies from Costa Rica.

As the world strives to achieve universal health coverage by 2030, countries must build robust healthcare systems founded on strong primary healthcare (PHC). In order to strengthen PHC, country governments need actionable guidance about how to implement health reform. Costa Rica is an example of a country that has taken concrete steps towards successfully improving PHC over the last two decades. In the 1990s, Costa Rica implemented three key reforms: governance restructuring, geographic empanelment, and multidisciplinary teams. To understand how Costa Rica implemented these reforms, we conducted a process evaluation based on a validated implementation science framework. We interviewed 39 key informants from across Costa Rica's healthcare system in order to understand how these reforms were implemented. Using the Exploration Preparation Implementation Sustainment (EPIS) framework, we coded the results to identify Costa Rica's key implementation strategies and explore underlying reasons for Costa Rica's success as well as ongoing challenges. We found that Costa Rica implemented PHC reforms through strong leadership, a compelling vision and deliberate implementation strategies such as building on existing knowledge, resources and infrastructure; bringing together key stakeholders and engaging deeply with communities. These reforms have led to dramatic improvements in health outcomes in the past 25 years. Our in-depth analysis of Costa Rica's specific implementation strategies offers tangible lessons and examples for other countries as they navigate the important but difficult work of strengthening PHC.

Assessment of Bypass of the Nearest Primary Health Care Facility Among Women in Ghana.

Importance: Recent reports have highlighted that expanding access to health care is ineffective at meeting the goal of universal health coverage if the care offered does not meet a minimum level of quality. Health care facilities nearest to patient's homes that are perceived to offer inadequate or inappropriate care are frequently bypassed in favor of more distant private or tertiary-level hospital facilities that are perceived to offer higher-quality care. Objective: To estimate the frequency with which women in Ghana bypass the nearest primary health care facility and describe patient experiences, costs, and other factors associated with this choice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationally representative survey study was conducted in 2017 and included 4203 households to identify women in Ghana aged 15 to 49 years (ie, reproductive age) who sought primary care within the last 6 months. Women who sought care within the past 6 months were included in the study. Data were analyzed from 2018 to 2019. Exposures: Bypass was defined as a woman's report that she sought care at a health facility other than the nearest facility. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sociodemographic characteristics, reasons why women sought care, reasons why women bypassed their nearest facility, ratings for responsiveness of care, patient experience, and out-of-pocket costs. All numbers and percentages were survey-weighted to account for survey design. Results: A total of 4289 women met initial eligibility criteria, and 4207 women (98.1%) completed the interview. A total of 1993 women reported having sough health care in the past 6 months, and after excluding those who were ineligible and survey weighting, the total sample included 1946 women. Among these, 629 women (32.3%) reported bypassing their nearest facilities for primary care. Women who bypassed their nearest facilities, compared with women who did not, were more likely to visit a private facility (152 women [24.5%] vs 202 women [15.6%]) and borrow money to pay for their care (151 women [24.0%] vs 234 women [17.8%]). After adjusting for covariates, women who bypassed reported paying a mean of 107.2 (95% CI, 79.1-135.4) Ghanaian Cedis (US $18.50 [95% CI, $13.65-$23.36]) for their care, compared with a mean of 58.6 (95% CI, 28.1-89.2) Ghanaian Cedis (US $10.11 [95% CI, $4.85-15.35]) for women who did not bypass (P = .006). Women who bypassed cited clinician competence (136 women [34.3%]) and availability of supplies (93 women [23.4%]) as the most important factors in choosing a health facility. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this survey study suggest that bypassing the nearest health care facility was common among women in Ghana and that available services at lower levels of primary care are not meeting the needs of a large proportion of women. Among the benefits women perceived from bypassing were clinician competence and availability of supplies. These data provide insights to policy makers regarding potential gaps in service delivery and may help to guide primary health care improvement efforts.

Towards patient-centred care in Ghana: health system responsiveness, self-rated health and experiential quality in a nationally representative survey.

INTRODUCTION: Person-centredness, including patient experience and satisfaction, is a foundational element of quality of care. Evidence indicates that poor experience and satisfaction are drivers of underutilisation of healthcare services, which in turn is a major driver of avoidable mortality. However, there is limited information about patient experience of care at the population level, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. METHODS: A multistage cluster sample design was used to obtain a nationally representative sample of women of reproductive age in Ghana. Women were interviewed in their homes regarding their demographic characteristics, recent care-seeking characteristics, satisfaction with care, patient-reported outcomes, and-using questions from the World Health Survey Responsiveness Module-the seven domains of responsiveness of outpatient care to assess patient experience. Using Poisson regression with log link, we assessed the relationship between responsiveness and satisfaction, as well as patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Women who reported more responsive care were more likely to be more educated, have good access to care and have received care at a private facility. Controlling for respondent and visit characteristics, women who reported the highest responsiveness levels were significantly more likely to report that care was excellent at meeting their needs (prevalence ratio (PR)=13.0), excellent quality of care (PR=20.8), being very likely to recommend the facility to others (PR=1.4), excellent self-rated health (PR=4.0) and excellent self-rated mental health (PR=5.1) as women who reported the lowest responsiveness levels. DISCUSSION: These findings support the emerging global consensus that responsiveness and patient experience of care are not luxuries but essential components of high-performing health systems, and highlight the need for more nuanced and systematic measurement of these areas to inform priority setting and improvement efforts.

Preliminary validation of the PRImary care facility Management Evaluation tool (PRIME-Tool), a national facility management survey implemented in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: The management quality of healthcare facilities has consistently been linked to facility performance, but available tools to measure management are costly to implement, often hospital-specific, not designed for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), nor widely deployed. We addressed this gap by developing the PRImary care facility Management Evaluation Tool (PRIME-Tool), a primary health care facility management survey for integration into routine national surveys in LMICs. We present an analysis of the tool's psychometric properties and suggest directions for future improvements. METHODS: The PRIME-Tool assesses performance in five core management domains: Target setting, Operations, Human resources, Monitoring, and Community engagement. We evaluated two versions of the PRIME-Tool. We surveyed 142 primary health care (PHC) facilities in Ghana in 2016 using the first version (27 items) and 148 facilities in 2017 using the second version (34 items). We calculated floor and ceiling effects for each item and conducted exploratory factor analyses to examine the factor structure for each year and version of the tool. We developed a revised management framework and PRIME-tool as informed by these exploratory results, further review of management theory literature, and co-author consensus. RESULTS: The majority (17 items in 2016, 23 items in 2017) of PRIME-Tool items exhibited ceiling effects, but only three (2 items in 2016, 3 items in 2017) showed floor effects. Solutions suggested by factor analyses did not fully fit our initial hypothesized management domains. We found five groupings of items that consistently loaded together across each analysis and named these revised domains as Supportive supervision and target setting, Active monitoring and review, Community engagement, Client feedback for improvement, and Operations and financing. CONCLUSION: The revised version of the PRIME-Tool captures a range of important and actionable information on the management of PHC facilities in LMIC contexts. We recommend its use by other investigators and practitioners to further validate its utility in PHC settings. We will continue to refine the PRIME-Tool to arrive at a parsimonious tool for tracking PHC facility management quality. Better understanding the functional components of PHC facility management can help policymakers and frontline managers drive evidence-based improvements in performance.

PHC Progression Model: a novel mixed-methods tool for measuring primary health care system capacity.

High-performing primary health care (PHC) is essential for achieving universal health coverage. However, in many countries, PHC is weak and unable to deliver on its potential. Improvement is often limited by a lack of actionable data to inform policies and set priorities. To address this gap, the Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) was formed to strengthen measurement of PHC in low-income and middle-income countries in order to accelerate improvement. PHCPI's Vital Signs Profile was designed to provide a comprehensive snapshot of the performance of a country's PHC system, yet quantitative information about PHC systems' capacity to deliver high-quality, effective care was limited by the scarcity of existing data sources and metrics. To systematically measure the capacity of PHC systems, PHCPI developed the PHC Progression Model, a rubric-based mixed-methods assessment tool. The PHC Progression Model is completed through a participatory process by in-country teams and subsequently reviewed by PHCPI to validate results and ensure consistency across countries. In 2018, PHCPI partnered with five countries to pilot the tool and found that it was feasible to implement with fidelity, produced valid results, and was highly acceptable and useful to stakeholders. Pilot results showed that both the participatory assessment process and resulting findings yielded novel and actionable insights into PHC strengths and weaknesses. Based on these positive early results, PHCPI will support expansion of the PHC Progression Model to additional countries to systematically and comprehensively measure PHC system capacity in order to identify and prioritise targeted improvement efforts.

It takes a community: a landscape analysis of global health research consortia.

BACKGROUND: The increased recognition of the core role of effective primary healthcare has identified large gaps in the knowledge of components of high-quality primary healthcare systems and the need for resources positioned to better understand them. Research consortia are an effective approach to generate evidence needed to address knowledge and evidence gaps and accelerate change. However, the optimal design of consortia and guidance on design decisions is not well studied. We report on a landscape analysis to understand global health research consortium models and major design decisions that inform model choice. METHODS: We conducted a landscape analysis to identify health-related research consortia typologies and explore decision processes leading to their design and implementation. We identified and reviewed 195 research consortia, extracted data on organisation, characteristics and operations for 115 and conducted 14 key informant interviews representing 13 consortia. We analysed interviews using thematic content analysis using results to develop categories of major design choices and research consortia models, structures and processes. RESULTS: Across a wide range of research consortia, the structure and function were determined by nine key design decisions that were mapped to three domains: scope: including mission and area of focus; organisational structure: including role and location of the core entity, choice of leader, governance and membership eligibility and responsibility; and funding decisions: including the funding source for research consortia operations and the funding sources and process for consortium research. DISCUSSION: Research consortia showed important heterogeneity across the nine decision points studied and based on their goals, needs and resources. These decisions and the three emerging domains (scope, organisation and funding) offer a potential framework for new research consortia and inform the design of a proposed primary health care research consortium intended to accelerate research to improve primary health care in LMICs.

Primary healthcare system performance in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review of the evidence from 2010 to 2017.

INTRODUCTION: The 2018 Astana Declaration reaffirmed global commitment to primary healthcare (PHC) as a core strategy to achieve universal health coverage. To meet this potential, PHC in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) needs to be strengthened, but research is lacking and fragmented. We conducted a scoping review of the recent literature to assess the state of research on PHC in LMIC and understand where future research is most needed. METHODS: Guided by the Primary Healthcare Performance Initiative (PHCPI) conceptual framework, we conducted searches of the peer-reviewed literature on PHC in LMIC published between 2010 (the publication year of the last major review of PHC in LMIC) and 2017. We also conducted country-specific searches to understand performance trajectories in 14 high-performing countries identified in the previous review. Evidence highlights and gaps for each topic area of the PHCPI framework were extracted and summarised. RESULTS: We retrieved 5219 articles, 207 of which met final inclusion criteria. Many PHC system inputs such as payment and workforce are well-studied. A number of emerging service delivery innovations have early evidence of success but lack evidence for how to scale more broadly. Community-based PHC systems with supportive governmental policies and financing structures (public and private) consistently promote better outcomes and equity. Among the 14 highlighted countries, most maintained or improved progress in the scope of services, quality, access and financial coverage of PHC during the review time period. CONCLUSION: Our findings revealed a heterogeneous focus of recent literature, with ample evidence for effective PHC policies, payment and other system inputs. More variability was seen in key areas of service delivery, underscoring a need for greater emphasis on implementation science and intervention testing. Future evaluations are needed on PHC system capacities and orientation toward social accountability, innovation, management and population health in order to achieve the promise of PHC.