Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30157764›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2018

Designing a framework for primary health care research in Canada: a scoping literature review.

Stephanie Montesanti, Ardene Robinson-Vollman, Lee A Green

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Assessing the impact of Canadian primary care research and researchers: Citation analysis.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A national research centre for the evaluation and implementation of person-centred care: Content from the first interventional studies.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stephanie MontesantiSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. montesan@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-3284-5767
Ardene Robinson-VollmanDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Lee A GreenDepartment of Family Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite significant investments to improve primary health care (PHC) delivery in Canada, provincial health care systems remain fragmented and uncoordinated. Canada's commitment to strengthening PHC should be driven by robust research and evaluation that reflects our health policy priorities and responds to the needs of the population. One challenge facing health services researchers is developing and sustaining meaningful research priorities and agendas in an overburdened, complex health care system with limited capacity for PHC research and support for clinician researchers.

methodsA scoping review of the literature was conducted to examine PHC research priorities in Canada. We compared national research priorities for PHC to research priorities being considered in the province of Alberta. Our scoping review was guided by the following questions: (1) What are the research priorities for PHC in Canada?; and (2) What process is used to identity PHC research priorities?

resultsSix key theme areas for consideration in setting a PHC research agenda were identified: research in practice, research on practice, research about practice, methods of priority setting, infrastructure, and the intersection of PHC and population/public health. These thematic areas provide a new framework for guiding PHC research in Canada. It was developed to generate best practices and new knowledge (i.e., innovation), transform PHC clinical practice or support quality improvement (i.e., spread), and lead to large-scale health care system transformation (i.e., scale).

conclusionsPriority-driven research aims to answer questions of key importance that are likely to have a significant impact on knowledge or practice in the short to medium term. Setting PHC research priorities ensures funded research has the greatest potential population health benefit, that research funding and outputs are aligned with the needs of practitioners and decision makers, and that there is efficient and equitable use of limited resources with less duplication of research effort. Our findings also suggest that a common research priority framework for PHC research in Canada would ensure that research priority-setting exercises are grounded in an evidence-based process.

Indexed as

Health PolicyHealth Services ResearchPrimary Health CareResearchAlbertaCanadaHumansQuality ImprovementCanadaPrimary health careResearch prioritiesResearch transfer

Identifiers

PMID30157764
PMCPMC6116436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.