ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025
Use of evidence to inform regional primary health care planning in Australia.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. 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.
- Public primary healthcare service network planning in Finland: a document analysis of principles, justifications, and future directions.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Strengthening the Commissioning Capacity of Primary Health Networks: A Framework and Strategies for Development.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2026Article
- Continuing the vision: engaging the Ottawa Charter for future 'healthy public policy'.Health promotion international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUse of evidence to inform health policy and planning decisions is important to ensure effective, efficient and equitable interventions, yet there has been little examination of decentralized, regional health bodies. This study aimed to examine the extent, purposes and sources of evidence used by Australian Primary Health Networks (PHNs) to inform regional primary health care planning, and explore conceptions of, and attitudes towards evidence.
methodsWe conducted document analysis of all 31 PHNs' Needs Assessments, Activity Work Plans and Annual Reports, and conducted 29 interviews with key stakeholders from a sample of five PHNs.
resultsWe found that PHNs used evidence to identify health needs to a far greater extent than to inform the planning and development of primary health care interventions. The evidence used largely consisted of quantitative data from government sources. There was very little use of evidence from research or evaluation documents. Evidence from community and other stakeholder consultation was useful for complementing quantitative data with localized knowledge but was of questionable rigour. Conceptions of evidence were generally broad. Interviewees tended to favour quantitative evidence, and the evidence that aligned with their professional background.
conclusionsWe recommend PHNs improve the use of intervention evidence and stakeholder engagement to inform effective, efficient and equitable local PHC initiatives. Developing more robust, transparent and standardized internal processes for evidence-informed program planning and evaluation, as well as maintaining and strengthening community and stakeholder participation in the planning process, will improve the robustness and effectiveness of planning.
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.