ArticleBMJ global health2019
Research gaps in the organisation of primary healthcare in low-income and middle-income countries and ways to address them: a mixed-methods approach.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the drivers of non-communicable diseases prevention activities in primary health care facilities in Ghana: a case study of some selected districts.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Article
- Democratising clinical trials research to strengthen primary health care.The Lancet. Global health · 2025Review
- The development and application of a two-step surveillance process for Healthy China Initiative based on wide coverage interagency data.Global health research and policy · 2023Article
- A review of published research in the South African Family Practice - A clarion call to action.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2023Article
- Participatory approaches in primary health care related implementation research in low-and middle-income countries: A narrative review.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2022Review
- Strategies to Promote Health System Strengthening and Global Health Security at the Subnational Level in a World Changed by COVID-19.Global health, science and practice · 2022Article
- Modified scoping review of the enablers and barriers to implementing primary health care in the COVID-19 context.Health policy and planning · 2021Article
- Developing measures to capture the true value of primary care.BJGP open · 2021Article
- Fostering global primary care research: a capacity-building approach.BMJ global health · 2020Review
- What kind of evidence do we need to strengthen primary healthcare in the 21st century?BMJ global health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSince the Alma-Ata Declaration 40 years ago, primary healthcare (PHC) has made great advances, but there is insufficient research on models of care and outcomes-particularly for low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Systematic efforts to identify these gaps and develop evidence-based strategies for improvement in LMICs has been lacking. We report on a global effort to identify and prioritise the knowledge needs of PHC practitioners and researchers in LMICs about PHC organisation.
methodsThree-round modified Delphi using web-based surveys. PHC practitioners and academics and policy-makers from LMICs sampled from global networks. First round (pre-Delphi survey) collated possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about organisation. Responses were independently coded, collapsed and synthesised. Round 2 (Delphi round 1) invited panellists to rate importance of each question. In round 3 (Delphi round 2), panellists ranked questions into final order of importance. Literature review conducted on 36 questions and gap map generated.
resultsDiverse range of practitioners and academics in LMICs from all global regions generated 744 questions for PHC organisation. In round 2, 36 synthesised questions on organisation were rated. In round 3, the top 16 questions were ranked to yield four prioritised questions in each area. Literature reviews confirmed gap in evidence on prioritised questions in LMICs.
conclusionIn line with the 2018 Astana Declaration, this mixed-methods study has produced a unique list of essential gaps in our knowledge of how best to organise PHC, priority-ordered by LMIC expert informants capable of shaping their mitigation. Research teams in LMIC have developed implementation plans to answer the top four ranked research questions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.