MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387582310 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v15n12p1

The Primary Health Care Approach: Rhetoric or Policy? - A Review of National Health Policies in 8 Countries in Southern Africa

2023· review· en· W4387582310 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gamuchirai P. Gwaza, Marcy McCall MacBain, Annette Plüddemann, Carl Heneghan

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistDeclarationPrimary health careMedicineCorporate governanceHealth policyPoliticsHealth carePolitical scienceNursingEconomic growthPublic healthPsychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The Primary Health Care approach (PHC) can contribute towards universal health coverage (UHC). However, implementing the PHC approach in Africa remains suboptimal. One way to ascertain political commitment to the PHC approach is its reflection in the national health policies (NHP). Several PHC initiatives have helped define and guide the PHC definition, implementation, and evaluation. These include the Alma Ata PHC conference, the Ouagadougou Declaration on PHC in Africa, and the Astana conference. The aim of this paper is to explore to what extent the guidance and characteristics of the PHC approach have been reflected and integrated into the National Health Policies (NHPs) in countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). METHODS: The READ approach was undertaken to analyze eight publicly available NHPs. A 12-point checklist was developed to extract relevant data from the policy documents. The WHO Health Systems building blocks are used as the analytical framework to understand the key features of the PHC approach mentioned in the policies. RESULTS: All the NHPs were developed after the Alma Ata conference in 1978. Six of the eight NHPs reviewed were updated after the Ouagadougou declaration on PHC in Africa in 2008. None of the NHPs were updated after the 2018 Astana PHC conference. Based on the checklist, Lesotho had the most integrated PHC elements (n=12), while Eswatini had the least (n=4). Based on the policy review, there seems to be commitment and priority placed on leadership, governance, and access to essential medicines. However, more still needs to be done to improve service delivery in terms of integrated patient centered care (only included in 3 out of the 8), health financing for primary care, integrated health information systems and the community health workers as part of the health workforce. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, NHPs should guide implementation, and the NHP is a reference document for many organizations wishing to partner with the government in improving health care services. As such, it should be updated in line with the new evidence and learning and reflect the country’s priorities to help align development actors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.026
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→