Select Page

Three items in this folder.   One is the rubric that must be followed, two is the template to fill out, and three is the journal article where the information will be extracted and filled into the template.

Annotated Bibliography Rubric

50 Pts

Exemplary

Developing

Needs Improvement

Written Criteria

10 Points

7 Points

4 Points

Faculty Comments

Bibliographical Information 

Bibliographical information is accurately stated and formatted.

Bibliographical information contains 2-3 errors.

Bibliographical information contains more than 3 errors.

Summary of Article 

Article is concisely summarized in one paragraph with no more than one error

Article is more than one paragraph with one error

Article exceeds one paragraph and has more than 2 errors.

Evaluation of Article

Article is evaluated in light of its purpose and credibility

Evaluation is loosely based on evidence but well organized

Evaluation does not relate to purpose of article and is not evidence-based.

Reflection on Application to Practice

Reflection contains reference to application to current of future practice merits or lack of merit.

Reflection is vague and only loosely related to current or future practice.

Reflection does not connect merit or lack of merit to practice.

Grammar, Syntax, APA Format

APA format, grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are accurate, or with zero to three errors.

Four to six errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted.

Paper contains greater than six errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation or repeatedly makes the same errors after faculty feedback.

Annotated Bibliography Worksheet

Student Name:

A. Bibliographical Information:

Author(s) Name:

Title of Article:

Date of Article:

Journal Name:

B. Summary of Article:

C. Evaluation of Article:

D. Reflection on Application to Practice:

Correspondence

www.thelancet.com Vol 387 April 30, 2016 1811

No universal health
coverage without
primary health care

U n i v e r s a l h e a l t h c o v e r a g e i s
currently the aspiration of many
countries worldwide. We commend
Michael Reich and colleagues1 for
analysing lessons learned from
different country experiences, but
we believe there is a crucial element
n e g l e c t e d w i t h i n t h e o n g o i n g
universal health coverage debate.

Health-care system development
requires more than financing and
human resource considerations.
Although essential, these components
must be integrated into an overall
f r a m e w o r k f o r o r g a n i s i n g a n d
delivering care that best meets
population needs. Primary health
care provides such a framework,
builds the backbone of an effective
health-care system, and can improve
health, reduce growth in costs, and
lower inequality.2 Strong orientation
towards primary health care and its
core principles (often outlined as fi rst
contact, continuous, comprehensive,
and coordinated care)3 is shown to
be stable over time 4 and was often
incorporated in the early days of many
health-care systems that have a strong
primary health-care orientation today.5
This observed stability makes the lack
of focus on primary health care within
the current universal health coverage
debate an urgent issue.

This is where universal health
coverage should be reconnected with
primary health care. To aim for universal
health coverage and better population
health should not remain a laudable
intention. People living in countries
presently moving towards universal
health coverage—irrespective of their
income level—should not suffer for
decades because of an avoidable failure
to secure a strong primary health-care
orientation from the very beginning.
We believe that the time to move the
universal health coverage debate
towards primary health care is now.

We declare no competing interests.

*Florian L Stigler, James Macinko,
Luisa M Pettigrew, Raman Kumar,
Chris van Weel
fl [email protected]

Institute of General Practice and Evidence-Based
Health Services Research, Medical University of Graz,
Graz 8010, Austria (FLS); Department of Health
Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public
Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene &
Tropical Medicine, London, UK (FLS, LMP);
Departments of Health Policy and Management and
Community Health Sciences, UCLA Fielding School
of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA (JM);
Academy of Family Physicians of India, New Delhi,
India (RK); Radboud University Medical Center,
Nijmegen, Netherlands (CvW); and Australian
Primary Health Care Research Institute, Australian
National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia (CvW)

1 Reich MR, Harris J, Ikegami N, et al. Moving
towards universal health coverage: lessons
from 11 country studies. Lancet 2016;
387: 811–16.

2 Starfi eld B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of
primary care to health systems and health.
Milbank Q 2005; 83: 457–502.

3 Starfi eld B. Is primary care essential?
Lancet 1994; 344: 1129–33.

4 Macinko J, Starfi eld B, Shi L. The contribution of
primary care systems to health outcomes within
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) countries, 1970–1998.
Health Serv Res 2003; 38: 831–65.

5 Stevens R. The evolution of healthcare systems
in the United States and the United Kingdom.
Similarities and diff erences.
Open University Press, 1995: 262–68.

Positive IgM for Zika
virus in the
cerebrospinal fl uid of
30 neonates with
microcephaly in Brazil

The epidemic of microcephaly in Brazil
has been declared a Public Health
Emergency of International Concern
by WHO .1 The declaration states that
a causal relationship between Zika
virus infection during pregnancy and
microcephaly is strongly suspected,
although not yet scientifi cally proven.1
The hesitancy to accept causation in
the presence of much epidemiological
circumstantial evidence is due to the
paucity of laboratory confi rmation of
Zika virus in aff ected neonates. Here,
we report the serological confi rmation

of Zika virus infection in the CNS of
30 neonates with microcephaly.

From Oct 21 to Oct 30, 2015, we
collected blood and cerebrospinal
fl uid (CSF) samples from 31 neonates
with microcephaly in the state of
Pernambuco, Brazil, most of whom
were born between Sept 12 and
Oct 27, 2015, in public maternity

Published Online
April 18, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0140-6736(16)30253-7

Serum IgM CSF IgM

Zika
virus

Dengue
virus type
1–4 mixture

Zika
virus

Dengue
virus type
1–4 mixture

Interpretation

1 day 17·0 2·7 12·1 1·5 Positive for Zika virus

1 day 20·6 2·9 16·1 2·4 Positive for Zika virus

1 day 20·6 7·8 14·8 4·2 Zika virus cross-reacting
with dengue virus

1 day 5·2 0·7 9·3 1·0 Positive for Zika virus

1 day 8·2 1·7 16·3 3·4 Zika virus cross-reacting
with dengue virus

2 days 6·2 0·9 15·0 1·5 Positive for Zika virus

2 days 6·2 0·9 14·5 2·7 Positive for Zika virus

2 days 7·5 0·9 16·1 2·9 Positive for Zika virus

2 days 4·7 0·9 14·2 1·7 Positive for Zika virus

2 days 12·7 1·2 15·9 2·9 Positive for Zika virus

2 days 10·5 1·7 15·8 2·1 Positive for Zika virus

3 days 10·5 1·1 14·8 2·4 Positive for Zika virus

3 days 15·6 2·6 14·8 2·4 Positive for Zika virus

3 days 16·0 1·6 16·4 1·9 Positive for Zika virus

4 days 3·2 0·6 13·5 1·9 Positive for Zika virus

5 days 3·9 0·8 9·3 0·8 Positive for Zika virus

5 days 11·4 5·5 15·5 4·6 Zika virus cross-reacting
with dengue virus

7 days 5·9 0·7 13·1 1·2 Positive for Zika virus

7 days 2·1 0·9 15·0 0·9 Positive for Zika virus

7 days 15·4 2·2 13·5 1·6 Positive for Zika virus

8 days 9·6 1·8 15·7 1·7 Positive for Zika virus

10 days 4·0 1·5 14·5 6·6 Zika virus cross-reacting
with dengue virus

11 days 0·9 1·8 0·6 1·9 Negative for Zika virus

12 days 16·1 6·2 15·7 5·0 Zika virus cross-reacting
with dengue virus

13 days 15·3 2·6 12·1 1·3 Positive for Zika virus

17 days 6·4 1·8 16·1 1·4 Positive for Zika virus

17 days 16·0 2·8 14·8 3·0 Positive for Zika virus

22 days 4·1 1·2 15·5 2·7 Positive for Zika virus

23 days 3·4 2·6 16·1 5·7 Zika virus cross-reacting
with dengue virus

36 days 2·1 0·9 15·6 1·9 Positive for Zika virus

40 days 12·2 1·1 13·3 0·8 Positive for Zika virus

ELISA values are patient optical densities divided by negative control densities (P/N);
values less than 2 were considered negative, 2–3 equivocal, and more than 3 positive.
CSF=cerebrospinal fl uid.

Table: IgM against Zika virus and dengue virus in the serum and CSF of neonates
with microcephaly, Pernambuco State, Brazil, 2015, by age (days) at testing

This online publication has been
corrected. The corrected version
first appeared at thelancet.com
on May 19, 2015

No universal health coverage without primary health care
References