Suppr超能文献

澳大利亚、加拿大、新西兰和瑞士的初级保健获取患者体验模式:一项比较研究。

Patterns of patient experience with primary care access in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland: a comparative study.

机构信息

Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, Institute of Family Medicine, University of Lausanne, rue du Bugnon 44, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland.

University of Sherbrooke, 150, place Charles-Le Moyne, C. P. 200 Longueuil (Québec) J4K 0A8, Montreal, Canada.

出版信息

Int J Qual Health Care. 2019 Nov 30;31(9):G126-G132. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzz092.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Access to primary care (PC) is vital, but complex to define and compare between settings. We aimed to generate a typology of patients' access patterns across countries using a novel inductive approach.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional surveys.

SETTING

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland between 2012 and 2014 as part of the QUALICO-PC project.

PARTICIPANTS

Data were collected from 1306 general practices and 10 000+ patients, with nine patients per practice.

INTERVENTION(S): None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Typology of access.

RESULTS

Three axes were retained, explaining 23% of the total variance: (i) 'temporal and geographical access'; (ii) 'frequency of access and unmet healthcare needs'; and (iii) 'affordability and frequency of access'.Based on the three axes, we identified four clusters of patients: (i) patients reporting overall good access to PC; (ii) frequent users with unmet healthcare needs; (iii) under-users with financial barriers; and (iv) users with poor time/geographical access.Better access to PC was experienced in Switzerland and New Zealand, while worst access was reported in Canada, where most of the time and geographical barriers were reported. Most financial barriers were observed in Australia and New Zealand. Frequent users with some level of unmet healthcare needs are prevalent in all four countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Four main groups of patients with different patterns of access were identified: (i) good access; (ii) geographical and time barriers; (iii) financial barriers; and (iv) frequent users with unmet healthcare needs. Differences in access between the four countries are substantial.

摘要

目的

初级保健(PC)的可及性至关重要,但在不同环境下定义和比较都很复杂。我们旨在采用一种新的归纳方法,生成一个跨越国家的患者就诊模式的分类。

设计

横断面调查。

设置

2012 年至 2014 年期间,澳大利亚、加拿大、新西兰和瑞士作为 QUALICO-PC 项目的一部分。

参与者

从 1306 家全科诊所和 10000 多名患者中收集数据,每个诊所 9 名患者。

干预措施

无。

主要观察指标

就诊模式分类。

结果

保留了三个轴,解释了总方差的 23%:(i)“时间和地理可及性”;(ii)“就诊频率和未满足的医疗需求”;和(iii)“可负担性和就诊频率”。基于这三个轴,我们确定了四类患者:(i)报告总体 PC 就诊可及性良好的患者;(ii)有未满足医疗需求的高频使用者;(iii)有经济障碍的低频率使用者;和(iv)时间/地理就诊可及性差的患者。瑞士和新西兰的 PC 可及性更好,而加拿大的可及性最差,报告了大部分时间和地理障碍。澳大利亚和新西兰观察到最多的经济障碍。所有四个国家都存在有一定程度未满足医疗需求的高频使用者。

结论

确定了四种具有不同就诊模式的主要患者群体:(i)良好的就诊可及性;(ii)地理和时间障碍;(iii)经济障碍;和(iv)有未满足医疗需求的高频使用者。四个国家之间的就诊差异很大。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验