MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2267562689 · doi:10.3109/02813432.2015.1108574

Future primary care in Norway: valid goals without clear strategies

2015· article· en· W2267562689 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guri Rørtveit

Notice bibliographique

RevueScandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNorwegianMedicinePrimary careHealth careWhite paperCompetence (human resources)Public relationsNursingEconomic growthPsychologyFamily medicinePolitical scienceSocial psychologyLawEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In 2015, the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services published a White Paper on the future of primary care in the country [1]. A strategy for research for primary care is strikingly missing [2]. Nevertheless, the goals for Norwegian primary care are reasonably concrete: better coordinated services, more patient orientation, and more decentralized services close to where patients live to reduce costs. The White Paper offers some clear signals: First, it suggests that primary care should be oriented towards multidisciplinary teams, so-called primary health teams. Second, we must assure higher competence among primary health care providers. Third, Norwegian primary care needs much stronger leadership than it has today. Although the measures to achieve the latter two points may be discussed, the need is indisputable. The first point implies a whole new way of organizing Norwegian general practice. Normally, that would be subject to a debate with the strength of a hurricane. However, a huge debate has not followed. Why is this? One reason may be that Norwegian GPs do not feel that they have time for a public debate on the subject. If so, that is a pity. Another reason may be that the White Paper is so unclear on how to go about changing the current system that nobody knows where to start. That is a pity, too. The vague direction for reorganization may originate from the fact that the Ministry has not paid enough attention to research and evaluation from other countries. Before Norwegian GPs start raising their voices to keep the current system, we too should take a close look at research from health care systems more prosperous than our own. High quality of the health care system is a multifaceted phenomenon (3). When one aspect of quality is strong, other aspects may be weakened. For example, a high degree of continuity between patient and provider may be at stake when a system strongly favours accessibility (4). Additionally, Norway is a country with high diversity in terms of geography and size of local communities, and we need to discuss whether one size fits all. The perfect system simply does not exist, but that does not mean that we should not strive to achieve our goals by organizing wisely. In Norway, GPs are mainly organized in small teams consisting of a few doctors and some health secretaries with 1–2 years of health education. Nurses have been rare in Norwegian general practice for the last 15–20 years due to high costs. Over the last decades, a desired transition from many single practices with only one doctor to bigger practices has taken place. Multidisciplinary practices with nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists, and other complementary professions are still rare. This is in contrast to many other countries, such as the Netherlands, Great Britain and Canada. The robustness and quality of multidisciplinary teams have been highlighted by research [3–5], and Norway should pay close attention to the experiences from these countries – and probably start an orientation towards multidisciplinary teams. How multidisciplinary teams should be recruited, co-located, and paid is not well described in the White Paper. Currently, fee for service combined with a capitation system dominates the income structure for GPs in Norway. Sensible financial incentives to support a transition to primary health teams are difficult to provide. Multidisciplinary approaches to better address the patients’ varying and complex needs are a valid goal. However, if we end up offering the services of many independent professions without real team organization and co-location, further fragmentation of Norwegian primary care will be the result [5]. To avoid such a development, GPs must participate in the discussion. We should do so based on research to make evidence-based choices.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,396
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,045
Tête enseignante GPT0,405
Écart entre enseignants0,360 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScandinavian Journal of Primary Health CareMême sujetPrimary Care and Health OutcomesTravaux en français237 207