ArticleRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health2022
[Measuring comprehensiveness of care using the Primary Care Assessment Tool: systematic reviewEvaluación de la integralidad en la atención primaria de salud por medio de la herramienta de evaluación de la atención primaria: revisión sistemática].
Article in Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities of older adults associated with Primary Health Care quality.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Primary care performance measurement in Brazil (Previne Brasil Program), 2022-2023.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Culture circle in primary care: dialogues with managers on health promotion.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the comprehensiveness of primary healthcare (PHC) in different countries.
methodPubMed, Virtual Health Library (BVS), and Scopus were systematically searched. Observational studies published from 2017 to 2019, using the Adult Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT) to assess comprehensiveness were included without limits regarding language of publication or country. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS).
resultsOf 124 articles initially selected, 13 were included: four from China, two from Japan, and two from Vietnam; considering the Americas, all four studies were performed in Brazil. Only one study from Africa, performed in Malawi, was included. The quality of studies according to the NOS was acceptable. Considering the availability of services, eight facilities had low comprehensiveness, vs. five with high comprehensiveness. Considering the services performed at the facility, nine had low comprehensiveness, and only four had high comprehensiveness.
conclusionThe low degree of PHC orientation in terms of comprehensiveness in terms of both services performed and services provided may reflect a lack of understanding of the demands of users, and indicates the need for concrete action to strengthen PHC as the basis of healthcare systems.
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.