ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2018
Trust as the foundation: thoughts on the Starfield principles in Canada and Brazil: The Besrour Papers: a series on the state of family medicine in Canada and Brazil.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- At home and away.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2018Article
- Challenges facing efforts to strengthen primary health care: The Besrour Papers: a series on the state of family medicine in Canada and Brazil.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare primary care in Canada and Brazil and how both countries have embraced the Starfield principles in the design of their health care systems. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: A subgroup of the Besrour Centre of the College of Family Physicians of Canada developed connections with colleagues in Brazil and collaborated to undertake a between-country comparison, comparing and contrasting various elements of both countries' efforts to strengthen primary care over the past few decades.
methodsFollowing a literature review, the authors collectively reflected on their experiences in an attempt to explore the past and current state of family medicine in Canada and Brazil. REPORT: The Brazilian and Canadian primary care systems have both adopted and advanced the Starfield principles in various ways, with both countries showing an increasing trend toward adopting interprofessional team-based care. Access to primary care remains a challenge in rural areas in both countries, and longitudinal relationships between providers and patients appear to be more common in Canada. With the advent of technology, increasing patient engagement and expectations, the decline of paternalistic medicine, and the sheer mass of readily available information (and misinformation), to be successful, primary care systems must also be constructed to engender trust at both the local and the system levels. Both countries face challenges to maintaining trust in the context of the increasing prevalence of team-based care, and a lack of trust at the system level can be seen in patients' perceptions about the difficulty of finding a family doctor and in high rates of emergency department and urgent care centre use in both countries. Primary care reform must be implemented with the public's trust in mind.
conclusionTrust is a crucial ingredient to the success of primary care and must be protected at both local and system levels. If designed with trust in mind, primary care in Canada and Brazil has the potential to meet the challenges set out by the Starfield principles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30429175PMC6234947What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.