Back

Tackling the primary healthcare workforce crisis: time to talk about health systems and governance. A comparative assessment of the European region

Kuhlmann, E.; Falkenbach, M.; Brinzac, M. G.; Correia, T.; Panagioti, M.; Rechel, B.; Sagan, A.; Santric-Milicevic, M.; Ungureanu, M.-I.; Wallenburg, I.; Burau, V.

2024-05-24 health policy
10.1101/2024.05.24.24307895 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPrimary healthcare has emerged as a powerful global concept, but little attention has been directed towards the pivotal role of the healthcare workforce and the diverse institutional setting in which they work. This study aims to bridge the gap between the primary healthcare policy and the ongoing healthcare workforce crisis debate by introducing a health system and governance approach to identify transformative capacities in health system contexts. MethodsA qualitative comparative methodology was employed, and a rapid assessment of the primary healthcare workforce was conducted across nine countries: Denmark, Germany, Kazakhstan, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom/ England. ResultsOur findings reveal both convergence and pronounced diversity across the healthcare systems, with none fully aligning with the ideal attributes of primary healthcare suggested by WHO. However, across all categories, Denmark, the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent Kazakhstan, depict closer alignment to this model than the other countries. Workforce composition and skill-mix vary strongly, while disparities persist in education and data availability, particularly within Social Health Insurance systems. Policy responses and interventions span governance, organisational, and professional realms, although with weaknesses in the implementation of policies and a systematic lack of data and evaluation. The WHO primary healthcare model only marginally informs policy decisions, with the exception being in Kazakhstan. ConclusionWe conclude that aligning primary healthcare and workforce considerations within the broader health system context may help move the debate forward and build governance capacities to improve resilience in both areas.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 6%
23.3%
2
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
19.3%
3
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
Health Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.1%
5
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.5%
6
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
7
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.2%
8
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
9
BJGP Open
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
10
Global Health Action
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
11
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
12
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
13
BMJ Open Quality
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
14
Journal of Public Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
15
European Journal of Public Health
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
16
Health Expectations
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
17
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
18
BMC Medical Education
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
19
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
20
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 72%
0.9%
21
BMC Psychiatry
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
22
BMJ Public Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
23
Pan African Medical Journal
11 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
24
Public Health
36 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%