Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31881884›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2019

Creating performance intelligence for primary health care strengthening in Europe.

Erica Barbazza, Dionne Kringos, Ioana Kruse, Niek S Klazinga, Juan E Tello

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Multi-dimensional Framework of Valued Output for Primary Care in England.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Performance indicators of Primary Care of the Previne Brasil Program.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2023
    Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Erica BarbazzaAmsterdam UMC, Department of Public Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. e.s.barbazza@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7621-1638
Dionne KringosAmsterdam UMC, Department of Public Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ioana KruseWHO European Centre for Primary Health Care, Health Services Delivery Programme, Division of Health Systems and Public Health, Tole Bi 88, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 050000.
Niek S KlazingaAmsterdam UMC, Department of Public Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Juan E TelloIntegrated Prevention and Control of NCDs Programme, Division of NCDs and Promoting Health through the Life-Course, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Marmorvej 51, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary health care and its strengthening through performance measurement is essential for sustainably working towards universal health coverage. Existing performance frameworks and indicators to measure primary health care capture system functions like governance, financing and resourcing but to a lesser extent the function of services delivery and its heterogeneous nature. Moreover, most frameworks have weak links with routine information systems and national health priorities, especially in the context of high- and middle-income countries. This paper presents the development of a tool that responds to this context with the aim to create primary health care performance intelligence for the 53 countries of the WHO European Region.

methodsThe work builds-off of an existing systematic review on primary care and draws on priorities of current European health policies and available (inter)national information systems. Its development included: (i) reviewing and classifying features of primary care; (ii) constructing a set of tracer conditions; and (iii) mapping existing indicators in the framework resulting from (i). The analysis was validated through a series of reviews: in-person meetings with country-nominated focal points and primary care experts; at-distance expert reviews; and, preliminary testing with country informants.

resultsThe resulting framework applies a performance continuum in the classical approach of structures-processes-outcomes spanning 6 domains - primary care structures, model of primary care, care contact, primary care outputs, health system outcomes, and health outcomes - that are further classified by 26 subdomains and 63 features of primary care. A care continuum was developed using a set of 12 tracer conditions. A total of 139 indicators were mapped to the classification, each with an identified data source to safeguard measurability. Individual indicator passports and a glossary of terms were developed to support the standardization of the findings.

conclusionThe resulting framework and suite of indicators, coined the Primary Health Care Impact, Performance and Capacity Tool (PHC-IMPACT), has the potential to be applied in Europe, closing the gap on existing data collection, analysis and use of performance intelligence for decision-making towards primary health care strengthening.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEuropeHealth PolicyHumansPrimary Health CareSystematic Reviews as TopicEuropeHealth systemsMeasurementPerformance assessmentPrimary carePrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID31881884
PMCPMC6935208

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.