ArticleRevista de saude publica2020
Evaluation of comprehensive care for older adults in primary care services.
Article in Revista de saude publica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensiveness in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.The Milbank quarterly · 2025Article
- Access of older people to primary health care in low and middle-income countries: A systematic scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
- Primary health care organization in municipalities of São Paulo, Brazil: a model of care aligned with the Brazilian Unified National Health System's guidelines.Cadernos de saude publica · 2024Article
- Congenital syphilis: performance of primary care services in São Paulo, 2017.Revista de saude publica · 2023Article
- Article
- Greater Care Program in the face of the challenges of aging: a qualitative analysis.Revista de saude publica · 2023Article
- Parkinson's disease in primary health care and nursing care: a scoping review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of comprehensive care for older adults in primary care services in the Brazilian Unified Health System in the state of São Paulo, Brazil.
methodsA total of 157 primary care services from five health regions in midwestern São Paulo responded, from October to December 2014, the pre-validated 2014 questionnaire for primary care services assessment and monitoring. We selected 155 questions, based on national policies and guidelines on this theme. The responses indicate the service performance in older adults' care, clustered into three areas of analysis: health care for active and healthy aging (45 indicators, d1), chronic noncommunicable diseases care (89 indicators, d2), and support network in aging care (21 indicators, d3). Performance was measured by the sum of positive (value 1) or negative (value 0) responses for each indicator. Services were clustered according to k-means of the performance scores of each domain. After weighting the domains (Z tests), we estimated the associations between the scores of each domain and independent management variables (typology, planning and evaluation of services), with simple and multiple linear regression.
resultsChronic noncommunicable diseases care (d2) showed, for all clusters, better average performance (55.7) than domains d1 (35.4) and d3 (39.2). Service performance in the general area of planning and evaluation associates with the performance of older adults' care.
conclusionsThe evaluated services had incipient implementation of comprehensive care for older adults. The evaluation framework can contribute to processes to improve the quality of primary health care.
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.