How major international development organisations operationalise primary health care: a thematic content analysis of strategy documents.

Luke N Allen, Erica Barbazza, Tova Tampe, Suraya Dalil, Shamsuzzoha Syed, Faraz Khalid
{"title":"How major international development organisations operationalise primary health care: a thematic content analysis of strategy documents.","authors":"Luke N Allen, Erica Barbazza, Tova Tampe, Suraya Dalil, Shamsuzzoha Syed, Faraz Khalid","doi":"10.1016/j.lanprc.2025.100014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite consensus around the need to prioritise primary health care (PHC), misaligned interpretations of this concept have real-world consequences for implementation. Here, we analysed how 30 major international development organisations operationalise PHC in their corporate strategy documents through thematic content analysis. The findings reveal that despite high-level endorsement for PHC, fewer than half of the reviewed documents explicitly mentioned PHC. Among those that did, PHC was conceptualised in varying ways: as a service delivery platform, level of care, bundle of interventions, or whole-of-society approach to health. From these conceptualisations, three different interpretations of PHC emerged-namely, the intended whole-of-society approach to health, strong or high-quality primary care, and selective or basic primary care. Integral components to PHC, including empowered people and communities and multisectoral action, were largely absent. These findings highlight the opportunities and urgency for improved alignment across international organisations to support a consistent approach aligned with the original vision of PHC.</p>","PeriodicalId":521027,"journal":{"name":"The Lancet. Primary care","volume":"1 1","pages":"None"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12379626/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Lancet. Primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanprc.2025.100014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite consensus around the need to prioritise primary health care (PHC), misaligned interpretations of this concept have real-world consequences for implementation. Here, we analysed how 30 major international development organisations operationalise PHC in their corporate strategy documents through thematic content analysis. The findings reveal that despite high-level endorsement for PHC, fewer than half of the reviewed documents explicitly mentioned PHC. Among those that did, PHC was conceptualised in varying ways: as a service delivery platform, level of care, bundle of interventions, or whole-of-society approach to health. From these conceptualisations, three different interpretations of PHC emerged-namely, the intended whole-of-society approach to health, strong or high-quality primary care, and selective or basic primary care. Integral components to PHC, including empowered people and communities and multisectoral action, were largely absent. These findings highlight the opportunities and urgency for improved alignment across international organisations to support a consistent approach aligned with the original vision of PHC.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

主要国际发展组织如何实施初级卫生保健:战略文件的专题内容分析。
尽管人们对优先考虑初级卫生保健(PHC)的必要性达成了共识,但对这一概念的错误解释对实施工作产生了现实后果。在这里,我们通过主题内容分析分析了30个主要的国际发展组织如何在其公司战略文件中实施PHC。调查结果显示,尽管高层认可初级保健,但只有不到一半的审查文件明确提到初级保健。在这些国家中,初级保健以不同的方式被概念化:作为服务提供平台、护理水平、一揽子干预措施或全社会的卫生方法。从这些概念中,出现了对初级保健的三种不同解释——即,预期的全社会保健方法,强大或高质量的初级保健,以及选择性或基本初级保健。初级保健的组成部分,包括获得权力的人民和社区以及多部门行动,基本上不存在。这些发现强调了改善国际组织间协调的机会和紧迫性,以支持与初级卫生保健最初愿景一致的一致方法。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信