Abstract
Abstract
Background
Evidence-informed primary health care (PHC) planning in decentralised, meso-level regional organisations has received little research attention. In this paper we examine the factors that influence planning within this environment, and present a conceptual framework.
Methods
We employed mixed methods: case studies of five Australian Primary Health Networks (PHNs), involving 29 primary interviews and secondary analysis of 38 prior interviews; and analysis of planning documents from all 31 PHNs. The analysis was informed by a WHO framework of evidence-informed policy-making, and institutional theory.
Results
Influential actors included federal and state/territory governments, Local Health Networks, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, local councils, public hospitals, community health services, and providers of allied health, mental health and aged care services. The federal government was most influential, constraining PHNs’ planning scope, time and funding. Other external factors included: the health service landscape; local socio-demographic and geographic characteristics; (neoliberal) ideology; interests and politics; national policy settings and reforms; and system reorganisation. Internal factors included: organisational structure; culture, values and ideology; various capacity factors; planning processes; transition history; and experience. The additional regional layer of context adds to the complexity of planning.
Conclusions
Like national health policy-making, meso-level PHC planning occurs in a complex environment, but with additional regional factors and influences. We have developed a conceptual framework of the meso-level PHC planning environment, which can be employed by similar regional organisations to elucidate influential factors, and develop strategies and tools to promote transparent, evidence-informed PHC planning for better health outcomes.
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference48 articles.
1. Naylor C, Curry N, Holder H, Ross S, Marshall L, Tait E. Clinical commissioning groups: supporting improvement in general practice? The King's Fund and Nuffield Trust; 2013.
2. Auwal S, Kaur K, Salma A, Kay T, Kamal A, Ismail S, et al. Countries experiences: review of district health management in developing and low developing countries. Int J Public Health Clin Sci. 2016;3(2):31–45.
3. Freeman T, Baum F, Javanparast S, Ziersch A, Mackean T, Windle A. Challenges facing primary health care in federated government systems: implementation of primary health networks in Australian states and territories. Health Policy. 2021;125:495–503.
4. World Health Organization. Alma Ata Declaration. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1978.
5. Green A, Bennett S. Sound choices: enhancing capacity for evidence-informed health policy: Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献