Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31272472›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019

The impact of governance in primary health care delivery: a systems thinking approach with a European panel.

Ana Belén Espinosa-González, Brendan C Delaney, Joachim Marti, Ara Darzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Successes, weaknesses, and recommendations to strengthen primary health care: a scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Article
  14. Organization of primary care.Primary health care research & development · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

4 authors.

Ana Belén Espinosa-GonzálezCentre for Health Policy, IGHI, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Room 1035, 10th Floor Queen Elizabeth Queen Mother Wing, St Mary's Hospital South Wharf Road, London, W2 1NY, United Kingdom. a.espinosa-gonzalez15@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8226-416X
Brendan C DelaneyDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Joachim MartiCentre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ara DarziDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research 1215-20013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhancing primary health care (PHC) is considered a policy priority for health systems strengthening due to PHC's ability to provide accessible and continuous care and manage multimorbidity. Research in PHC often focuses on the effects of specific interventions (e.g. physicians' contracts) in health care outcomes. This informs narrowly designed policies that disregard the interactions between the health functions (e.g. financing and regulation) and actors involved (i.e. public, professional, private), and their impact in care delivery and outcomes. The purpose of this study is to analyse the interactions between PHC functions and their impact in PHC delivery, particularly in providers' behaviour and practice organisation.

methodsFollowing a systems thinking approach with data obtained through a three-round European Delphi process, we developed a framework that captures (1) the interactions between PHC functions by analysing correlations between PHC characteristics of participating countries, (2) how actors involved shaped these interactions by identifying the actor and level of devolution (or fragmentation) in the analysis, and (3) their potential effect on care delivery by exploring panellists' opinions.

resultsA total of 59 panellists from 24 countries participated in the first round and 76% of the initial panellists (22 countries) completed the last round. Findings show correlations between governance, financing and regulation based on their degree of decentralisation. This is supported by panellists, who agreed that the actors involved in health system governance determine the type of PHC financing (e.g. ownership or payment mechanisms) and regulation (e.g. competences or gatekeeping), and this may impact care delivery and outcomes. Governance in our framework is an overarching function whose impact in PHC delivery is mediated through the degree of decentralisation (both delegation and devolution) of PHC financing and regulation.

conclusionsThe application of this approach in policy implementation assessment intends to uncover limitations due to poor accountability and commitment to shared objectives. Its application in the design of health strategies helps foresee (and prevent) undesired or unexpected effects of narrow interventions. This approach will assist in the development of the realistic and long-term policies required for health systems strengthening.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDelivery of Health CareDelphi TechniqueEuropeFemaleGatekeepingHealth Services ResearchHumansInsurance, Health, ReimbursementMaleMiddle AgedOwnershipPrimary Health CareSystems AnalysisdecentralisationDelphi studyfinancingframeworkgovernanceprimary health careregulation

Identifiers

PMID31272472
PMCPMC6609383

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.