A Comparative Case Study: Does the Organization of Primary Health Care in Brazil and Turkey Contribute to Reducing Disparities in Access to Care?

Ece A Özçelik, Adriano Massuda, Marcia C Castro, Enis Barış
{"title":"A Comparative Case Study: Does the Organization of Primary Health Care in Brazil and Turkey Contribute to Reducing Disparities in Access to Care?","authors":"Ece A Özçelik,&nbsp;Adriano Massuda,&nbsp;Marcia C Castro,&nbsp;Enis Barış","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2021.1939931","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Brazil and Turkey are among the few high-middle-income countries that explicitly chose to strengthen their primary health care (PHC) systems as the centerpiece of much broader health system reforms aiming to narrow inequities in access to care. This comparative case study reviews the organization of Brazil and Turkey's PHC systems to derive lessons that can apply to other countries that may consider reforming the organization of PHC systems as a way to address health inequities. The analysis uses the Flagship Framework to investigate how the organization of PHC delivery in Brazil and Turkey can lead to measurable improvements in access to care. It compares (1) the degree of decentralization in PHC service delivery responsibilities, (2) the use of multi-professional PHC teams, and (3) patient impanelment strategies. The comparative analysis offers three important lessons. First, changes in the organization of PHC systems can contribute to observable improvements in the level and distribution of health outcomes, but organizational strategies do not guarantee eliminating disparities in access. Second, PHC systems can operate in health systems with varying degrees of decentralization, but the level of decentralization may influence implementation. Third, relying on multi-professional PHC teams that serve geographically empaneled populations can improve equitable access to care, but course corrections may be needed to address evolving health demands.</p>","PeriodicalId":73218,"journal":{"name":"Health systems and reform","volume":"7 2","pages":"e1939931"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health systems and reform","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2021.1939931","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Brazil and Turkey are among the few high-middle-income countries that explicitly chose to strengthen their primary health care (PHC) systems as the centerpiece of much broader health system reforms aiming to narrow inequities in access to care. This comparative case study reviews the organization of Brazil and Turkey's PHC systems to derive lessons that can apply to other countries that may consider reforming the organization of PHC systems as a way to address health inequities. The analysis uses the Flagship Framework to investigate how the organization of PHC delivery in Brazil and Turkey can lead to measurable improvements in access to care. It compares (1) the degree of decentralization in PHC service delivery responsibilities, (2) the use of multi-professional PHC teams, and (3) patient impanelment strategies. The comparative analysis offers three important lessons. First, changes in the organization of PHC systems can contribute to observable improvements in the level and distribution of health outcomes, but organizational strategies do not guarantee eliminating disparities in access. Second, PHC systems can operate in health systems with varying degrees of decentralization, but the level of decentralization may influence implementation. Third, relying on multi-professional PHC teams that serve geographically empaneled populations can improve equitable access to care, but course corrections may be needed to address evolving health demands.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较案例研究:巴西和土耳其的初级卫生保健组织是否有助于减少获得保健的差距?
巴西和土耳其是为数不多的明确选择加强初级卫生保健体系的中高收入国家,将其作为旨在缩小获得卫生保健方面不平等现象的更广泛卫生系统改革的核心。本比较案例研究审查了巴西和土耳其初级保健系统的组织情况,以得出可适用于其他可能考虑改革初级保健系统组织作为解决卫生不平等问题的一种方式的国家的经验教训。该分析利用旗舰框架调查了巴西和土耳其组织初级保健服务如何在获得医疗服务方面取得可衡量的改善。它比较了(1)初级保健服务提供责任的分散化程度,(2)多专业初级保健团队的使用,以及(3)患者介入策略。对比分析提供了三个重要的教训。首先,初级保健系统组织结构的变化有助于改善健康结果的水平和分布,但组织战略不能保证消除获取方面的差距。其次,初级保健系统可以在分权程度不同的卫生系统中运行,但分权程度可能会影响实施。第三,依靠多专业的初级保健团队为地理上分散的人群提供服务,可以改善公平获得保健的机会,但可能需要纠正方针,以应对不断变化的卫生需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Does Public Financial Management Save Life? Evidence from a Quantitative Review of PFM and Health Outcomes in Sub-Saharan African Countries. COVID-19 Deaths in Long-Term Care Facilities in the US: An Urgent Call for Equitable and Integrated Health Systems and an All-Hazards Approach to the Next Crisis. Resilience of Primary Health Care in Ukraine: Challenges of the Pandemic and War. The Impact of Centralized Procurement on Treatment Patterns for Myocardial Infarction and More Principled Utilization of Coronary Stents. Data Integration of Health Financing Systems as a Critical Enabler for Objective-Oriented Health System Reform: A Scoping Review from India.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1