Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31478022›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2019

Organisation of primary health care in the Asia-Pacific region: developing a prioritised research agenda.

Anna Palagyi, Rebecca Dodd, Stephen Jan, Devaki Nambiar, Rohina Joshi, Maoyi Tian, Seye Abimbola, David Peiris

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Anna PalagyiThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8127-9351
Rebecca DoddThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3469-8999
Stephen JanThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Devaki NambiarThe George Institute for Global Health, New Delhi, India.
Rohina JoshiThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Maoyi TianFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Seye AbimbolaThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David PeirisThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6898-3870
UNSW Sydney · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P013996/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health system planners in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) of the Asia-Pacific region seeking to reorient primary health care (PHC) systems to achieve universal health coverage may be hindered by lack of knowledge of what works in their setting. With limited resources for research available, it is important to identify evidence-based strategies for reorganising PHC delivery, determine where relevant evidence gaps exist and prioritise these for future study. This paper describes an approach for doing this using the best available evidence combined with consultation to establish evidence priorities. We first reviewed PHC organisational interventions in Asia-Pacific LMICs and ascertained evidence gaps. The largest gaps related to interventions to promote access to essential medicines, patient management tools, effective health promotion strategies and service planning and accountability. Evidence from Pacific Island countries was particularly scant. We then engaged an expert panel of 22 PHC stakeholders from seven Asia-Pacific LMICs in a Delphi exercise to identify priority questions for future research. Research priorities were: (1) identifying effective PHC service delivery models for chronic diseases; (2) devising sustainable models of disease integration; (3) optimising task shifting; (4) understanding barriers to care continuity; (5) projecting future PHC needs; and (6) designing appropriate PHC service packages. Notably, stakeholder-determined priorities reflected large, context-dependent system issues, while evidence gaps centred on discrete interventions. Future research on the organisation of PHC services in Asia-Pacific LMICs should incorporate codesign principles to engage researchers and national PHC system stakeholders, and innovative methods that build on existing evidence and account for system complexity.

Indexed as

Asia-Pacifichealth systemslow- and middle-income countriesprimary health careresearch priorities

Identifiers

PMID31478022
PMCPMC6703300
OpenAlexW2967951010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.