McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Public Health Department, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Mumbai, India.
BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Oct;7(10). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009657.
There are few rigorous studies comparing quality of tuberculosis (TB) care in public versus private sectors.
We used standardised patients (SPs) to measure technical quality and patient experience in a sample of private and public facilities in Mumbai.
SPs presented a 'classic, suspected TB' scenario and a 'recurrence or drug-resistance' scenario. In the private sector, SPs completed 643 interactions. In the public sector, 164 interactions. Outcomes included indicators of correct management, medication use and client experience. Public providers used microbiological testing (typically, microscopy) more frequently, in 123 of 164 (75%; 95% CI 68% to 81%) vs 223 of 644 interactions (35%; 95% CI 31% to 38%) in the private sector. Private providers were more likely to order chest X-rays, in 556 of 639 interactions (86%; 95% CI 84% to 89%). According to national TB guidelines, we found higher proportions of correct management in the public sector (75% vs 35%; (adjusted) difference 35 percentage points (pp); 95% CI 25 to 46). If X-rays were considered acceptable for the first case but drug-susceptibility testing was required for the second case, the private sector correctly managed a slightly higher proportion of interactions (67% vs 51%; adjusted difference 16 pp; 95% CI 7 to 25). Broad-spectrum antibiotics were used in 76% (95% CI 66% to 84%) of the interactions in public hospitals, and 61% (95% CI 58% to 65%) in private facilities. Costs in the private clinics averaged rupees INR 512 (95% CI 485 to 539); public facilities charged INR 10. Private providers spent more time with patients (4.4 min vs 2.4 min; adjusted difference 2.0 min; 95% CI 1.2 to 2.9) and asked a greater share of relevant questions (29% vs 43%; adjusted difference 13.7 pp; 95% CI 8.2 to 19.3).
While the public providers did a better job of adhering to national TB guidelines (especially microbiological testing) and offered less expensive care, private sector providers did better on client experience.
很少有严格的研究比较公共部门和私营部门的结核病(TB)护理质量。
我们使用标准化患者(SP)在孟买的一些私营和公共设施中测量技术质量和患者体验。
SP 呈现了一个“典型的、疑似 TB”的场景和一个“复发或耐药”的场景。在私营部门,SP 完成了 643 次互动。在公共部门,完成了 164 次互动。结果包括正确管理、药物使用和客户体验的指标。公共提供者更频繁地使用微生物检测(通常是显微镜检查),在 164 次互动中的 123 次(75%;95%CI 68%至 81%),而在私营部门的 644 次互动中,只有 223 次(35%;95%CI 31%至 38%)。私营提供者更有可能开胸部 X 光检查,在 639 次互动中的 556 次(86%;95%CI 84%至 89%)。根据国家结核病指南,我们发现公共部门的正确管理比例更高(75%对 35%;(调整)差异 35 个百分点(pp);95%CI 25 至 46)。如果 X 光检查被认为适用于第一个病例,但第二个病例需要药物敏感性测试,那么私营部门的处理比例略高(67%对 51%;调整差异 16pp;95%CI 7 至 25)。广谱抗生素在公立医院的 76%(95%CI 66%至 84%)和私营机构的 61%(95%CI 58%至 65%)的互动中使用。私营诊所的平均费用为卢比 512(95%CI 485 至 539);公共设施收费 10 卢比。私人提供者与患者相处的时间更长(4.4 分钟对 2.4 分钟;调整差异 2.0 分钟;95%CI 1.2 至 2.9),并提出了更多相关问题(29%对 43%;调整差异 13.7pp;95%CI 8.2 至 19.3)。
虽然公共提供者在遵守国家结核病指南(特别是微生物检测)方面做得更好,并且提供了更便宜的护理,但私营部门提供者在客户体验方面表现更好。