DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Defining the Concept of Primary Care in South Korea Using a Delphi Method: Secondary Publication

델파이법을 이용한 일차의료 개념정의: 이차출판

  • Lee, Jae Ho (Department of Family Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Yong-Jun (Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine) ;
  • Volk, Robert J. (Department of General Internal Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center) ;
  • Kim, Soo Young (Department of Family Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Yong Sik (Green Health Clinic) ;
  • Park, Hoon Ki (Department of Family Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jeon, Tae-Hee (Department of Family Medicine, Seoul Veterans Hospital) ;
  • Hong, Seung Kwon (Department of Family Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Spann, Stephen J. (Department of Family and Community Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine)
  • 이재호 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 가정의학교실) ;
  • 최용준 (한림대학교 의과대학 사회의학교실) ;
  • ;
  • 김수영 (한림대학교 의과대학 가정의학교실) ;
  • 김용식 (그린헬스클리닉) ;
  • 박훈기 (한양대학교 의과대학 가정의학교실) ;
  • 전태희 (서울보훈병원 가정의학과) ;
  • 홍승권 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 가정의학교실) ;
  • Received : 2014.01.17
  • Accepted : 2014.03.17
  • Published : 2014.03.31

Abstract

Background: There is no consensus on the definition of primary care in South Korea. This study's objective was to define the concept of primary care using a Delphi method. Methods: Three expert panels were formed, consisting of 16 primary care policy researchers, 45 stakeholders, and 16 primary care physicians. Three rounds of voting, using 9-point appropriateness scales, were conducted. The first round involved rating the appropriateness of 20 previously established attributes of primary care. In the second round, panelists received a summary of the first-round results and were asked to once again vote on the 10 undetermined attributes and the provisional definition. The final round involved voting on the appropriateness of the revised definition. The Korean Language Society reviewed the revised definition. Results: Four core (first-contact care, comprehensiveness, coordination, and longitudinality) and three ancillary (personalized care, family and community context, and community base) attributes were selected. The Korean definition of primary care was accomplished with all three panel groups arriving at a 'very good' level of consensus. Conclusion: The Korean definition of primary care will provide a framework for evaluating performance of primary care in South Korea. It will also contribute to resolving confusion about the concept of primary care.

Keywords

References

  1. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q 2005;83(3):457-502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x
  2. Boerma W. Coordination and integration in European primary care. In: Saltman B, Rico A, Boerma W, editors. Primary care in the driver's seat? Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2006. pp. 3-21.
  3. Starfield B. Primary care: concept, evaluation, and policy. New York: Oxford University Press; 1992.
  4. Donaldson JS, Yordy KD, Lohr KN, Vanselow NA, editors. Primary care: America's health in a new era. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 1996. pp. 13-51.
  5. Starfield B. Primary care: balancing health needs, services, and technology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.
  6. Goicoechea J. Primary health care reforms. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe; 1996.
  7. Saltman RB. Drawing the strands together: primary care in perspective. In: Saltman B, Rico A, Boerma W, editors. Primary care in the driver's seat? Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2006.
  8. Korean Medical Association. 2004 Annual report membership statistics Korean Medical Association. Seoul: Korean Medical Association; 2005.
  9. Kim CY. Primary care in Korea: mirage or reality. Korean J Public Health 2000;37(1):25-35.
  10. Dalkey NC, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Publication RM-727-PR. Santa Monica (CA): RAND; 1962.
  11. Delbecq AL, van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH. Group techniques for program planning. Glenview (IL): Scott Foresman Company; 1975. pp. 83-107.
  12. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995;311(7001):376-380. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376
  13. Rohde J, Wyon J. Community-based health care. Boston: Management Science for Health Inc.; 2002.
  14. European Society of General Practice/Family Medicine. The European definition of general practice and family medicine. Barcelona: WONCA Europe; 2002.
  15. Health Evidence Network, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. What are the advantages and disadvantages of restructuring a health care system to be more focused on primary care services? Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe; 2004.
  16. Baumann MH, Strange C, Heffner JE, Light R, Kirby TJ, Klein J, et al. Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: an American College of Chest Physicians Delphi consensus statement. Chest 2001;119(2):590-602. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.119.2.590
  17. Fitch K, Bernstein S, Aguilar MD, Burnand B, LaCalle JR, Lazaro P, et al. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user's manual. Santa Monica (CA): RAND; 2001.
  18. Lee JC. Health care reform in South Korea: success or failure? Am J Public Health 2003;93(1):48-51. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.1.48
  19. Park KD. Primary care physician in Korea. J Korean Acad Fam Med 2002; 23(6):677-687.
  20. Lee JH, Moon OR, Lee WC, Yoon SJ, Lee B, Jun CS. An analysis of opinion polls for family medicine specialists on the implementation of family doctor registration system in Korea. J Korean Acad Fam Med 1999; 20(1):43-54.
  21. Mills JS. The graduate education of physicians: report of the Citizens' Commission on Graduate Medical Education. Chicago: American Medical Association; 1966.
  22. Alpert JJ, Charney E. The education of physicians for primary care. Washington (DC): US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1973.
  23. Parker A. The dimensions of primary care: blueprints for change. In: Andreopoulos S, editor. Primary care: where medicine fails. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1974. pp. 15-80.
  24. Gordon TJ. The Delphi method. AC/UNU Millennium Project Futures Research Methodology [Internet]. Caracas: Sociedad Mundial del Futuro; 1994 [cited 2006 May 10]. Available from: http://www.futurovenezuela.org/_curso/5-delphi.pdf.
  25. Fowles J. Handbook of futures research. Westport (CT): Greenwood Press; 1978.
  26. Rayens MK, Hahn EJ. Building consensus using the policy Delphi method. Policy Politics Nurs Pract 2000;1(4):308-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/152715440000100409
  27. Lee JH, Choi YJ, Sung NJ, Kim SY, Chung SH, Kim J, et al. Development of the Korean primary care assessment tool: measuring user experience: tests of data quality and measurement performance. Int J Qual Health Care 2009;21(2):103-111. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzp007