Palagyi Anna, Dodd Rebecca, Jan Stephen, Nambiar Devaki, Joshi Rohina, Tian Maoyi, Abimbola Seye, Peiris David
The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
The University of Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Aug 16;4(Suppl 8):e001467. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001467. eCollection 2019.
Health system planners in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) of the Asia-Pacific region seeking to reorient primary health care (PHC) systems to achieve universal health coverage may be hindered by lack of knowledge of what works in their setting. With limited resources for research available, it is important to identify evidence-based strategies for reorganising PHC delivery, determine where relevant evidence gaps exist and prioritise these for future study. This paper describes an approach for doing this using the best available evidence combined with consultation to establish evidence priorities. We first reviewed PHC organisational interventions in Asia-Pacific LMICs and ascertained evidence gaps. The largest gaps related to interventions to promote access to essential medicines, patient management tools, effective health promotion strategies and service planning and accountability. Evidence from Pacific Island countries was particularly scant. We then engaged an expert panel of 22 PHC stakeholders from seven Asia-Pacific LMICs in a Delphi exercise to identify priority questions for future research. Research priorities were: (1) identifying effective PHC service delivery models for chronic diseases; (2) devising sustainable models of disease integration; (3) optimising task shifting; (4) understanding barriers to care continuity; (5) projecting future PHC needs; and (6) designing appropriate PHC service packages. Notably, stakeholder-determined priorities reflected large, context-dependent system issues, while evidence gaps centred on discrete interventions. Future research on the organisation of PHC services in Asia-Pacific LMICs should incorporate codesign principles to engage researchers and national PHC system stakeholders, and innovative methods that build on existing evidence and account for system complexity.
亚太地区低收入和中等收入国家(LMIC)的卫生系统规划者若想重新调整初级卫生保健(PHC)系统以实现全民健康覆盖,可能会因不了解本国适用的方法而受阻。鉴于可用于研究的资源有限,确定基于证据的初级卫生保健服务提供重组策略、找出相关证据差距并将其列为未来研究的优先事项非常重要。本文描述了一种利用现有最佳证据并结合咨询以确定证据优先事项的方法。我们首先回顾了亚太地区低收入和中等收入国家的初级卫生保健组织干预措施,并确定了证据差距。最大的差距与促进基本药物获取的干预措施、患者管理工具、有效的健康促进策略以及服务规划和问责制有关。来自太平洋岛国的证据尤其匮乏。然后,我们让来自七个亚太地区低收入和中等收入国家的22名初级卫生保健利益相关者组成的专家小组参与了德尔菲法练习,以确定未来研究的优先问题。研究优先事项包括:(1)确定针对慢性病的有效初级卫生保健服务提供模式;(2)设计可持续的疾病整合模式;(3)优化任务转移;(4)了解护理连续性的障碍;(5)预测未来初级卫生保健需求;(6)设计适当的初级卫生保健服务包。值得注意的是,利益相关者确定的优先事项反映了重大的、因背景而异的系统问题,而证据差距则集中在离散的干预措施上。未来对亚太地区低收入和中等收入国家初级卫生保健服务组织的研究应纳入共同设计原则,以使研究人员和国家初级卫生保健系统利益相关者参与进来,并采用基于现有证据并考虑系统复杂性的创新方法。