This paper reports on a systematic review that sought to answer the research question: What is the impact of the primary and community care nurse on patient health outcomes compared with usual doctor-led care in primary care settings? A range of pertinent text-words with medical subject headings were combined and electronic databases were searched. Because of the volume of published articles, the search was restricted to studies with high-level evidence. Overall, 31 relevant studies were identified and included in the review. We found modest international evidence that nurses in primary care settings can provide effective care and achieve positive health outcomes for patients similar to that provided by doctors. Nurses are effective in care management and achieve good patient compliance. Nurses are also effective in a more diverse range of roles including chronic disease management, illness prevention and health promotion. Nevertheless, there is insufficient evidence about primary care nurses' roles and impact on patient health outcomes.
Contemporary health promotion is now a well-defined discipline with a strong (albeit diverse) theoretical base, proven technologies (based on program planning) for addressing complex social problems, processes to guide practice and a body of evidence of efficacy and increasingly, effectiveness. Health promotion has evolved principally within the health sector where it is frequently considered optional rather than core business. To maximize effectiveness, quality health promotion technologies and practices need to be adopted as core business by the health sector and by organizations in other sectors. It has proven difficult to develop the infrastructure, workforce and resource base needed to ensure the routine introduction of high-quality health promotion into organizations. Recognizing these problems, this paper explores the use of organizational theory and practice in building the capacity of organizations to design, deliver and evaluate health promotion effectively and efficiently. The paper argues that organizational change is an essential but under-recognized function for the sustainability of health promotion practice and a necessary component of capacity-building frameworks. The interdependence of quality health promotion with organizational change is discussed in this paper through three case studies. While each focused on different aspects of health promotion development, the centrality of organizational change in each of them was striking. This paper draws out elements of organizational change to demonstrate that health promotion specialists and practitioners, wherever they are located, should be building organizational change into both their practice and capacity-building frameworks because without it, effectiveness and sustainability are at risk.
Governments and other public health agencies have become increasingly interested in evidence-informed policy and practice. Translating research evidence into programmatic change has proved challenging and the evidence around how to effectively promote and facilitate this process is still relatively limited. This paper presents the findings from an evaluation of a series of evidence-based health promotion resources commissioned by the Victorian Department of Human Services. The evaluation used qualitative methods to explore how practitioners for whom the resources were intended, viewed and used them. Document and literature review and analysis, and a series of key informant interviews and focus groups were conducted. The findings clearly demonstrate that the resources are unlikely to act as agents for change unless they are linked to a knowledge management process that includes practitioner engagement. This paper also considers the potential role of knowledge brokers in helping to identify and translate evidence into practice.
As governments attempt to focus more intently on how to deal with alarming measures of health disadvantage and inequities, a reformist gaze seems to have settled on the primary care sector. Simultaneously, in literature about this area, whether intended or not, primary health care and primary care are terms that are increasingly interchanged. This article argues that the slippage in language is counter-productive, first because it disguises the transformative potential of strategies and approaches that can make the fundamental changes necessary to improve health status, and second because the structures and practices of the primary care sector are not necessarily compatible with notions of comprehensive primary health care. There is much to be lost if primary health care and health promotion are disguised as primary care, and not understood for their capacity to make a difference to health inequities although of course in some circumstances, comprehensive primary health care is interdependent with services provided by primary care. In this article, characteristics of primary care and primary health care are juxtaposed to show that if the strengths and limitations of each model are understood, they can be mobilised in collaborative partnerships to deal more effectively with health inequities, than our system has so far been able to do.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.