Li Jin, Zhao Ning, Gu Mei, Li Danhui, Yang Jia
Hospital Office, Shenzhen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Guangdong, 518033, China.
School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China.
Fam Pract. 2024 Oct 8;41(5):745-754. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmae039.
To describe how patients choose between primary care institutions (PCIs) and non-PCIs using rational choice theory from the perspective of survival rationality, economic rationality, and social rationality.
Multi-stage stratified sampling and convenience sampling were applied to select 1723 patients to conduct the questionnaire survey. Chi-square test and binary logistic regression were performed to analyze the factors associated with patients' choice of PCIs.
In total 55.83% of 1723 patients would attend a PCIs for healthcare. The results of the univariate analysis revealed that patients who are female (58.46%, P = .015), suffering from chronic diseases (56.26%, P = .047), inpatients (67.58%, P < .001), Beijing (59.62%, P = .002), partial understanding of the family doctor contracting system (62.30%, P < .001), and not understanding of the medical alliance policy (58.04%, P = .031) had significantly higher probability of choosing PCIs. Logistic regression analysis showed that females were more unwilling to attend PCIs (odds ratio (OR) = 0.822, 95%CI: 0.676-0.999). Following survival rationality, patients without chronic diseases were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.834, 95%CI: 1.029-3.268), and inpatients were more unlikely to attend PCIs (OR = 0.581, 95%CI: 0.437-0.774). From an economic rationality perspective, patients from the Fujian province were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.424, 95%CI: 1.081-1.876). From a social rationality perspective, patients who partial understanding of the family doctor contracting system were more unlikely to attend PCIs (OR = 0.701, 95%CI: 0.551-0.892), and patients who partial and complete understanding of the medical alliance policy were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.340, 95%CI: 1.064-1.687; OR = 1.485, 95%CI: 1.086-2.030).
Survival, economic, and social rationality are involved in patients' choice to attend PCIs. Compared to survival rationality and social rationality, economic rationality showed a lower association with patients' choice to attend PCIs. Medical institutions are recommended to adopt a "patient health-centered" approach when providing medical services and further optimize the family doctor contracting system and construction of medical alliances.
从生存理性、经济理性和社会理性的角度,运用理性选择理论描述患者在基层医疗机构(PCI)和非基层医疗机构之间的选择方式。
采用多阶段分层抽样和便利抽样的方法,选取1723例患者进行问卷调查。采用卡方检验和二元逻辑回归分析与患者选择基层医疗机构相关的因素。
1723例患者中,共有55.83%的患者会选择基层医疗机构进行医疗保健。单因素分析结果显示,女性患者(58.46%,P = 0.015)、患有慢性病的患者(56.26%,P = 0.047)、住院患者(67.58%,P < 0.001)、北京地区患者(59.62%,P = 0.002)、对家庭医生签约制度部分了解的患者(62.30%,P < 0.001)以及对医疗联盟政策不了解的患者(58.04%,P = 0.031)选择基层医疗机构的概率显著更高。逻辑回归分析显示,女性更不愿意选择基层医疗机构(比值比(OR)= 0.822,95%置信区间:0.676 - 0.999)。遵循生存理性,无慢性病的患者更有可能选择基层医疗机构(OR = 1.834,95%置信区间:1.029 - 3.268),而住院患者选择基层医疗机构的可能性更小(OR = 0.581,95%置信区间:0.437 - 0.774)。从经济理性角度来看,福建省的患者更有可能选择基层医疗机构(OR = 1.424,95%置信区间:1.081 - 1.876)。从社会理性角度来看,对家庭医生签约制度部分了解的患者选择基层医疗机构的可能性更小(OR = 0.701,95%置信区间:0.551 - 0.892),而对医疗联盟政策部分了解和完全了解的患者选择基层医疗机构的可能性更大(OR = 1.340,95%置信区间:1.064 - 1.687;OR = 1.485,95%置信区间:1.086 - 2.030)。
生存理性、经济理性和社会理性均影响患者选择基层医疗机构。与生存理性和社会理性相比,经济理性与患者选择基层医疗机构的关联较低。建议医疗机构在提供医疗服务时采用“以患者健康为中心”的方法,并进一步优化家庭医生签约制度和医疗联盟建设。