4.6 Review

Primary health care quality indicators: An umbrella review

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 14, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220888

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. FEDER - Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional funds through the COMPETE 2020 - Operacional Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalisation (POCI)
  2. Portuguese funds through FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-030766]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nowadays, evaluating the quality of health services, especially in primary health care (PHC), is increasingly important. In a historical perspective, the Department of Health (United Kingdom) developed and proposed a range of indicators in 1998, and lately several health, social and political organizations have defined and implemented different sets of PHC quality indicators. Some systematic reviews in PHC quality indicators are reported but only in specific contexts and conditions. The aim of this study is to characterize and provide a list of indicators discussed in the literature to support managers and clinicians in decision-making processes, through an umbrella review on PHC quality indicators. The methodology was performed according to PRISMA Statement. Indicators from 33 eligible systematic reviews were categorized according to the dimensions of care, function, type of care, domains and condition contexts. Of a total of 727 indicators or groups of indicators, 74.5% (n = 542) were classified in process category and 89.5% (n = 537) with chronic type of care (n = 428; 58.8%) and effective domain (n = 423; 58.1%) with the most frequent values in categorizations by dimensions. The results of this overview of reviews are valuable and imply the need for future research and practice regarding primary health care quality indicators in the most varied conditions and contexts to generate new discussions about their use, comparison and implementation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available