7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Fostering global primary care research: a capacity-building approach

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The Alma Ata and Astana Declarations reaffirm the importance of high-quality primary healthcare (PHC), yet the capacity to undertake PHC research—a core element of high-quality PHC—in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) is limited. Our aim is to explore the current risks or barriers to primary care research capacity building, identify the ongoing tensions that need to be resolved and offer some solutions, focusing on emerging contexts. This paper arose from a workshop held at the 2019 North American Primary Care Research Group Annual Meeting addressing research capacity building in LMICs. Five case studies (three from Africa, one from South-East Asia and one from South America) illustrate tensions and solutions to strengthening PHC research around the world. Research must be conducted in local contexts and be responsive to the needs of patients, populations and practitioners in the community. The case studies exemplify that research capacity can be strengthened at the micro (practice), meso (institutional) and macro (national policy and international collaboration) levels. Clinicians may lack coverage to enable research time; however, practice-based research is precisely the most relevant for PHC. Increasing research capacity requires local skills, training, investment in infrastructure, and support of local academics and PHC service providers to select, host and manage locally needed research, as well as to disseminate findings to impact local practice and policy. Reliance on funding from high-income countries may limit projects of higher priority in LMIC, and ‘brain drain’ may reduce available research support; however, we provide recommendations on how to deal with these tensions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Health research capacity development in low and middle income countries: reality or rhetoric? A systematic meta-narrative review of the qualitative literature

          Objectives Locally led health research in low and middle income countries (LMICs) is critical for overcoming global health challenges. Yet, despite over 25 years of international efforts, health research capacity in LMICs remains insufficient and development attempts continue to be fragmented. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and critically examine the main approaches and trends in health research capacity development and consolidate key thinking to identify a more coherent approach. Methods This review includes academic and grey literature published between January 2000 and July 2013. Using a predetermined search strategy, we systematically searched PubMed, hand-searched Google Scholar and checked reference lists. This process yielded 1668 papers. 240 papers were selected based on a priori criteria. A modified version of meta-narrative synthesis was used to analyse the papers. Results 3 key narratives were identified: the effect of power relations on capacity development; demand for stronger links between research, policy and practice and the importance of a systems approach. Capacity development was delivered through 4 main modalities: vertical research projects, centres of excellence, North–South partnerships and networks; all were controversial, and each had their strengths and weaknesses. A plurality of development strategies was employed to address specific barriers to health research. However, lack of empirical research and monitoring and evaluation meant that their effectiveness was unclear and learning was weak. Conclusions There has been steady progress in LMIC health research capacity, but major barriers to research persist and more empirical evidence on development strategies is required. Despite an evolution in development thinking, international actors continue to use outdated development models that are recognised as ineffective. To realise newer development thinking, research capacity outcomes need to be equally valued as research outputs. While some development actors are now adopting this dedicated capacity development approach, they are in the minority.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Primary Health Care as a Foundation for Strengthening Health Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

            Primary health care (PHC) has been recognized as a core component of effective health systems since the early part of the twentieth century. However, despite notable progress, there remains a large gap between what individuals and communities need, and the quality and effectiveness of care delivered. The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) was established by an international consortium to catalyze improvements in PHC delivery and outcomes in low- and middle-income countries through better measurement and sharing of effective models and practices. PHCPI has developed a framework to illustrate the relationship between key financing, workforce, and supply inputs, and core primary health care functions of first-contact accessibility, comprehensiveness, coordination, continuity, and person-centeredness. The framework provides guidance for more effective assessment of current strengths and gaps in PHC delivery through a core set of 25 key indicators (“Vital Signs”). Emerging best practices that foster high-performing PHC system development are being codified and shared around low- and high-income countries. These measurement and improvement approaches provide countries and implementers with tools to assess the current state of their PHC delivery system and to identify where cross-country learning can accelerate improvements in PHC quality and effectiveness.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improving health care globally: a critical review of the necessity of family medicine research and recommendations to build research capacity.

              An invitational conference led by the World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca) involving selected delegates from 34 countries was held in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, March 8 to 12, 2003. The conference theme was "Improving Health Globally: The Necessity of Family Medicine Research." Guiding conference discussions was the value that to improve health care worldwide, strong, evidence-based primary care is indispensable. Eight papers reviewed before the meeting formed the basic material from which the conference developed 9 recommendations. Wonca, as an international body of family medicine, was regarded as particularly suited to pursue these conference recommendations: 1. Research achievements in family medicine should be displayed to policy makers, health (insurance) authorities, and academic leaders in a systematic way. 2. In all countries, sentinel practice systems should be developed to provide surveillance reports on illness and diseases that have the greatest impact on the population's health and wellness in the community. 3. A clearinghouse should be organized to provide a central repository of knowledge about family medicine research expertise, training, and mentoring.4. National research institutes and university departments of family medicine with a research mission should be developed. 5. Practice-based research networks should be developed around the world.6. Family medicine research journals, conferences, and Web sites should be strengthened to disseminate research findings internationally, and their use coordinated. Improved representation of family medicine research journals in databases, such as Index Medicus, should be pursued.7. Funding of international collaborative research in family medicine should be facilitated.8. International ethical guidelines, with an international ethical review process, should be developed in particular for participatory (action) research, where researchers work in partnership with communities. 9. When implementing these recommendations, the specific needs and implications for developing countries should be addressed.The Wonca executive committee has reviewed these recommendations and the supporting rationale for each. They plan to follow the recommendations, but to do so will require the support and cooperation of many individuals, organizations, and national governments around the world.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2020
                5 July 2020
                : 5
                : 7
                : e002470
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentBesrour Centre for Global Family Medicine , College of Family Physicians of Canada , Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Family Medicine , University of Ottawa , Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ]Robert Graham Center Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care , Washington DC, District of Columbia, USA
                [4 ]departmentDepartment of Family Medicine , Georgetown Public Hospital , Georgetown, Guyana
                [5 ]departmentGeneral Practice , University of Auckland Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences , Auckland, New Zealand
                [6 ]departmentFamily Medicine , McGill University , Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [7 ]departmentPrimary Care , University of East Anglia Norwich Medical School , Norwich, Norfolk, UK
                [8 ]departmentDepartment of Family and Community Medicine , University of Toronto, Canada and Southgate Institute for Health , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [9 ]departmentFamily and Community Medicine , Penn State Health Milton S Hershey Medical Center , Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA
                [10 ]departmentFamily Medicine , University of Jos , Jos, Plateau, Nigeria
                [11 ]departmentFamily Medicine , Jos University Teaching Hospital , Jos, Plateau, Nigeria
                [12 ]departmentFamily and Emergency Medicine , Stellenbosch University , Cape Town, South Africa
                [13 ]Stellenbosch University , Cape Town, South Africa
                [14 ]departmentPsychiatry , Universiti Putra Malaysia Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences , Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
                [15 ]departmentDepartment Primary and Community Care , Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen , Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [16 ]departmentDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy , Australian National University , Acton, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
                [17 ]departmentGeneral Practice and Primary Health Care , The University of Auckland , Auckland, New Zealand
                [18 ]University of Auckland , Auckland, New Zealand
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr David Ponka; dponka@ 123456cfpc.ca
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0902-8520
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5305-991X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0973-5890
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6898-8428
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6754-6145
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3653-4701
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0370-9616
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6657-9401
                Article
                bmjgh-2020-002470
                10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002470
                7337619
                32624501
                80c42a5c-90d6-4f96-85a7-5dcb078a3117
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 09 March 2020
                : 13 May 2020
                : 18 May 2020
                Categories
                Analysis
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                health services research,health systems evaluation

                Comments

                Comment on this article