SynthesisBMC health services research2025
Performance measurement systems in primary health care: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. 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.
- Mapping Quality Indicators in Primary Health Care: A Scoping Review of Contemporary Approaches and Persistent Measurement Gaps.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Describing and monitoring quality in value-based palliative and end-of-life care at a population level in Wales: achievements and future direction.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of the Primary Care Needs Assessment (PCNA) Questionnaire: A Participatory Multidimensional Approach to Identifying Health Needs.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Healthcare Information Management and Accreditation in Europe.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A critical interpretive synthesis of the constructed identities and experiences of refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants in relation to accessing primary care services in the UK.Journal of migration and health · 2026Review
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
backgroundPerformance measurement systems (PMS) are increasingly recognized as essential tools in healthcare services. However, there remains a significant gap in the literature regarding their development, implementation, and impact on primary health care (PHC). This study aims to systematically review peer-reviewed literature to identify and analyze existing constructs, methodologies, and challenges associated with PMS in primary care settings worldwide.
methodsThis systematic review follows the PRISMA guidelines regarded as the gold standard for evidence synthesis in scientific and grey literature. The quality of the selected studies was assessed using the Rosalind Franklin Qualitative Research Appraisal Instrument (RF-QRA), focusing on transferability, reliability, credibility, and confirmability.
resultsFrom an initial pool of 167 articles, 14 studies were selected for in-depth analysis. These studies highlighted several challenges, including difficulties in evaluating PMS post-implementation within primary care units, limited evidence on the longitudinal monitoring of performance indicators, and inconsistencies in methodological approaches. The findings also revealed that regional, operational, and cultural contexts influenced the most PMS adaptations.
conclusionsThis systematic review offers a comprehensive diagnosis of the best PMS models implemented globally over the past five years, emphasizing heterogeneity, diversification, and reliability. The findings underscore the potential for PMS to inform public policies to achieve high-performance primary healthcare systems and enhance decision-making processes at both operational and managerial levels.
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.