Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31478024›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2019

Primary health care financing interventions: a systematic review and stakeholder-driven research agenda for the Asia-Pacific region.

Blake Angell, Rebecca Dodd, Anna Palagyi, Thomas Gadsden, Seye Abimbola, Shankar Prinja, Stephen Jan, David Peiris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Financing primary healthcare for rural areas.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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.

Blake AngellThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7188-7740
Rebecca DoddThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3469-8999
Anna PalagyiThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8127-9351
Thomas GadsdenThe George Institute for Global Health, 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.
Shankar PrinjaSchool of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Stephen JanThe 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

Funding

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

Abstract

introductionInterventions targeting the financing of primary health care (PHC) systems could accelerate progress towards universal health coverage; however, there is limited evidence to guide best-practice implementation of these interventions. This study aimed to generate a stakeholder-led research agenda in the area of PHC financing interventions in the Asia-Pacific region.

methodsWe adopted a two-stage process: (1) a systematic review of financing interventions targeting PHC service delivery in the Asia-Pacific region was conducted to develop an evidence gap map and (2) an electronic-Delphi (e-Delphi) exercise with key national PHC stakeholders was undertaken to prioritise these evidence needs.

resultsThirty-one peer-reviewed articles (including 10 systematic reviews) and 10 grey literature reports were included in the review. There was limited consistency in results across studies but there was evidence that some interventions (removal of user fees, ownership models of providers and contracting arrangements) could impact PHC service access, efficiency and out-of-pocket cost outcomes. The e-Delphi exercise highlighted the importance of contextual factors and prioritised research in the areas of: (1) interventions to limit out-of-pocket costs; (2) financing models to enhance health system performance and maintain PHC budgets; (3) the design of incentives to promote optimal care without unintended consequences and (4) the comparative effectiveness of different PHC service delivery strategies using local data.

conclusionThe research questions which were deemed most important by stakeholders are not addressed in the literature. There is a need for more research on how financing interventions can be implemented at scale across health systems. Such research needs to be pragmatic and balance academic rigour with practical considerations.

Indexed as

asia-pacific regiondelphi processhealth financinghealth systemsprimary health careresearch prioritiessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31478024
PMCPMC6703289

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.