Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37474277›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2023

Retracing loss of momentum for primary health care: can renewed political interest in the context of COVID-19 be a turning point?

Alison T Mhazo, Charles Chiedza Maponga

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Alison T MhazoCommunity Health Sciences Unit (CHSU), Ministry of Health, Lilongwe, Malawi alisonmhazo@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2885-4713
Charles Chiedza MapongaPharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed major weaknesses in primary health care (PHC), and how such weaknesses pose a catastrophic threat to humanity. As a result, strengthening PHC has re-emerged as a global health priority and will take centre stage at the 2023 United Nations High Level Meeting (UNHLM) on Universal Health Coverage (UHC). In this analysis, we examine why, despite its fundamental importance and incredible promise, the momentum for PHC has been lost over the years. The portrayal of PHC itself (policy image) and the dominance of global interests has undermined the attractiveness of intended PHC reforms, leading to legacy historical policy choices (critical junctures) that have become extremely difficult to dismantle, even when it is clear that such choices were a mistake. PHC has been a subject of several political declarations, but post-declarative action has been weak. The COVID-19 provides a momentous opportunity under which the image of PHC has been reconstructed in the context of health security, breaking away from the dominant social justice paradigms. However, we posit that effective PHC investments are those that are done under calm conditions, particularly through political choices that prioritise the needs of the poor who continue to face a crisis even in non-pandemic situations. In the aftermath of the 2023 UNHLM on UHC, country commitment should be evaluated based on the technical and financial resources allocated to PHC and tangible deliverables as opposed to the formulation of documents or convening of a gathering that simply (re) endorses the concept.

Indexed as

COVID-19Primary Health CareHealth Care ReformHealth PrioritiesHumansPandemicsCOVID-19Health policyHealth systems

Identifiers

PMID37474277
PMCPMC10360423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.