Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35350460›Full record

ArticleRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health2022

[Primary health care expenditure in the Americas: measuring what mattersGasto em atenção primária à saúde nas Américas: calcular o que importa].

Magdalena Rathe, Patricia Hernández-Peña, Claudia Pescetto, Cornelis Van Mosseveld, Maria Angélica Borges Dos Santos, Laura Rivas

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Genomic surveillance and sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 across South America.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2023
    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

6 authors.

Magdalena RatheFundación Plenitud Santo Domingo República Dominicana Fundación Plenitud, Santo Domingo, República Dominicana.
Patricia Hernández-PeñaConsultora Ámsterdam Países Bajos Consultora, Ámsterdam, Países Bajos.
Claudia PescettoOrganización Panamericana de la Salud Washington, D.C. Estados Unidos de América Organización Panamericana de la Salud, Washington, D.C., Estados Unidos de América.
Cornelis Van MosseveldConsultor La Haya Países Bajos Consultor, La Haya, Países Bajos.
Maria Angélica Borges Dos SantosFundación Oswaldo Cruz Rio de Janeiro Brasil Fundación Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Laura RivasOrganización Mundial de la Salud Ginebra Suiza Organización Mundial de la Salud, Ginebra, Suiza.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This special report compares the measurement of primary health care (PHC) expenditure proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the World Health Organization (WHO), according to the global framework for reporting health expenditures (SHA 2011) in three countries in the Region of the Americas. There are conceptual differences: 1) operationalization as basic care, by OECD, versus first contact, by WHO; 2) a wider range of goods and services in the WHO definition (including medicines, administration, and collective preventive services); and 3) consideration only of services in outpatient providers by OECD. PHC expenditures as a percentage of current healthcare spending in 2017 for WHO and OECD: Mexico (43.6% vs. 15.1%); Dominican Republic (41.1% vs. 5.75%), and Costa Rica (31.4% vs. 5.7%). The 30% target for current healthcare spending on PHC proposed by Compact 30-30-30 (Pan American Health Organization) would be surpassed by the WHO definition, but it would be far from achieved by the OECD definition. The broad WHO definition of PHC as first contact facilitates inclusion of services that reflect the way countries provide care to their populations. Even so, WHO could improve its category descriptions for the purposes of international comparison. Restricting PHC to outpatient providers (as the OECD does) greatly limits measurement and excludes interventions intrinsic to the concept of PHC, such as collective preventive services. As a transitional step, we recommend that countries should monitor PHC funding and should explain what they include in their definition. SHA 2011 makes it possible to identify and compare these differences.

Indexed as

health expendituresmeasurementsmethods and theoriesPrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID35350460
PMCPMC8942294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.