ArticleGlobal health action2023
Consensus-based recommendations for strengthening emergency care at primary health care level: a Delphi study.
Article in Global health action, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of the WHO/ICRC Basic Emergency Care (BEC) course on nurses' knowledge, confidence, and competence in Primary Health Care facilities in Gauteng, South Africa.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025Article
- Development and psychometric testing of a scale to measure effective rural emergency transfer (RET).BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Barriers faced by primary healthcare providers in addressing emergencies in the Northern region of Palestine before and during the Gaza war.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Development of practical emergency simulation training in primary health care: Lessons learnt.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmergency care at a primary health care (PHC) level must be strengthened to reduce overall mortality and morbidity in any country. Developing recommendations for improvement in this area should take into consideration the context and nuances of the current emergency care system and primary health care context. Contribution to policy from the experts in the cross-cutting fields of PHC and emergency care is lacking.
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of emergency care in primary health settings and develop consensus-based recommendations for the strengthening of emergency care at this level.
methodsUsing a modified Delphi technique, data were collected from various data sources to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of emergency care at PHC level, from which recommendation statements were developed. These recommendations were proposed to a panel of experts using a Delphi survey to build consensus on 14 recommendations to strengthen emergency care at PHC level.
resultsTen experts were recruited to participate (n = 10) with a response rate of 90% in round II and 80% in round III of Delphi. Recommendations broadly addressed the areas of education and training in emergency care, the role and placement of various actors, leadership in emergency care and the development of a national plan for emergency care. Consensus was reached in round II for 97.61% of the statements and after modification based on open-ended comments, 98.21% consensus was reached in round III.
conclusionStrengthening emergency care at primary and subsequent levels of health care requires a coordinated effort and mandate from authority in order to effect real change.
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.