Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
China Center for Health Development Studies, Peking University, Beijing, China.
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 25;19(7):e0304294. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304294. eCollection 2024.
There is a paucity of evidence regarding the definition of the quality of primary health care (PHC) in China. This study aims to evaluate the PHC quality for chronic diseases in rural areas based on a modified conceptual framework tailored to the context of rural China.
This comprehensive study, involving a patient survey, a provider survey and chart abstraction, and second-hand registered data, was set in three low-resource counties in rural China from 2021 to 2022. Rural patients with hypertension or type 2 diabetes, and health care workers providing care on hypertension or diabetes were involved. The modified PHC quality framework encompasses three core domains: a competent PHC system (comprehensiveness, accessibility, continuity, and coordination), effective clinical care (assessment, diagnosis, treatment, disease management, and provider competence), and positive user experience (information sharing, shared decision-making, respect for patient's preferences, and family-centeredness). Standardized PHC quality score was generated by arithmetic means or Rasch models of Item Response Theory.
This study included 1355 patients, 333 health care providers and 2203 medical records. Ranging from 0 (the worst) to 1 (the best), the average quality score for the PHC system was 0.718, with 0.887 for comprehensiveness, 0.781 for accessibility, 0.489 for continuity, and 0.714 for coordination. For clinical care, average quality was 0.773 for disease assessment, 0.768 for diagnosis, 0.677 for treatment, 0.777 for disease management, and 0.314 for provider competence. The average quality for user experience was 0.727, with 0.933 for information sharing, 0.657 for shared decision-making, 0.936 for respect for patients' preferences, and 0.382 for family-centeredness. The differences in quality among population subgroups, although statistically significant, were small.
The PHC quality in rural China has shown strengths and limitations. We identified large gaps in continuity of care, treatment, provider competence, family-centeredness, and shared decision-making. Policymakers should invest more effort in addressing these gaps to improve PHC quality.
中国缺乏关于初级卫生保健(PHC)质量定义的证据。本研究旨在基于适合中国农村背景的修改概念框架,评估农村地区慢性病的 PHC 质量。
本综合研究于 2021 年至 2022 年在我国三个资源匮乏的农村县进行,涉及患者调查、提供者调查和图表提取以及二手登记数据。研究对象为患有高血压或 2 型糖尿病的农村患者以及提供高血压或糖尿病护理的卫生保健工作者。修改后的 PHC 质量框架包括三个核心领域:一个有能力的 PHC 系统(全面性、可及性、连续性和协调性)、有效的临床护理(评估、诊断、治疗、疾病管理和提供者能力)以及积极的用户体验(信息共享、共同决策、尊重患者偏好和以家庭为中心)。通过算术平均值或项目反应理论的拉斯克模型生成标准化 PHC 质量评分。
本研究共纳入 1355 名患者、333 名卫生保健提供者和 2203 份病历。PHC 系统的平均质量评分为 0.718(最差得分为 0,最佳得分为 1),其中全面性得分为 0.887,可及性得分为 0.781,连续性得分为 0.489,协调性得分为 0.714。临床护理方面,疾病评估的平均质量评分为 0.773,诊断评分为 0.768,治疗评分为 0.677,疾病管理评分为 0.777,提供者能力评分为 0.314。用户体验的平均质量评分为 0.727,其中信息共享评分为 0.933,共同决策评分为 0.657,尊重患者偏好评分为 0.936,以家庭为中心评分为 0.382。尽管人口亚组之间的质量差异在统计学上有显著意义,但差异较小。
中国农村的 PHC 质量存在优势和局限性。我们发现连续性护理、治疗、提供者能力、以家庭为中心和共同决策方面存在较大差距。政策制定者应加大力度解决这些差距,以提高 PHC 质量。