Primary Care Financing: A Systematic Assessment of Research Priorities in Low- And Middle-Income Countries

Goodyear-Smith et al. (2019) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

primary care financing

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

international

Why was it conducted at all?

Financing of primary healthcare (PHC) is the key to the provision of equitable universal care. We aimed to identify and prioritise the perceived needs of PHC practitioners and researchers for new research in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) about financing of PHC.

What was the objective?

to address the Primary Healthcare Performance Initiative priority innovation area of financing (market structure, political economy and uptake of evidence) to identify and prioritize the knowledge needs of primary health care practitioners, researchers and policy-makers in LMIC

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 31 research questions

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

Delphi; workshop

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: Delphi round 1: participants were asked to generate research questions that addressed gaps in knowledge in PHC finance. Step 2: data processing: questions collated and coded into domains, 479 valid generated questions coded. Step 3: Delphi round 2: 31 questions on financing presented and participants were asked to rate the questions. Step 3: Delphi round 3: top 16 questions presented and participants were asked to rank the questions. Step 4: literature review conducted to test whether there was already an LMIC literature base for each of the research questions or truly gap. Step 5: workshop: to generate research implementation plans: panelists were invited to submit expressions of interest to prepare implementation plans for the top three questions, during the workshop small groups critiqued plans and provided feedback

Which stakeholders took part?

Primary health care practitioners and academics. Delphi round 1: 70 participants. Delphi round 2: 84 participants. Delphi round 3: 68 participants. Workshop: members of the research team.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Participants were invited using the member networks of the organizations listed above, augmented by ‘snowballing' sampling techniques. A sampling matrix was used to ensure that the panel represented diversity in gender, age, residing country, location (rural or urban), role and discipline, and years of experience. Inclusion criteria were PHC practitioners, researchers or policy-makers residing and working in a LMIC. They required experience deemed relevant to provide opinions on regional or national research needs on the key area of PHC finances.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.