Changes in the perceived quality of primary care in Shanghai and Shenzhen, China: a difference-in-difference analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in the quality of primary care in two megacities following the introduction of health system reforms in China. METHODS: We conducted multistage stratified random face-to-face surveys of patients visiting community health centres in Shanghai in 2011 and 2013, and Shenzhen in 2012 and 2013. Quality of primary care was measured using an assessment tool. Difference-in-difference analyses based on multiple linear regressions were used to compare the changes over time, after controlling for potential confounders. FINDINGS: Most (2721) of the 3214 participants used a community health centre as their regular source of care and were included in our analyses. The mean total scores for quality of primary care were similar for Shanghai and Shenzhen at baseline. In Shenzhen, the mean total scores for all participants and those on low incomes had worsened by 0.922 (95% CI: 0.629 to 1.215) and 1.203 (95% CI: 0.397 to 2.009), respectively. In Shanghai, however, there were improvements in the mean total scores which included increases in the scores for first-contact utilization, continuity, coordination of information and comprehensiveness. CONCLUSION: The quality of primary care improved in Shanghai but not in Shenzhen. This may be because, in Shanghai, beneficial long-term relationships between patients and general practitioners were supported by capitation payments and the provision of services tailored to the local health priorities.

Comparison of three models of ownership of community health centres in China: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Community health centres are the main form of provision of primary care in China. There are three models: government managed, hospital managed and private. Our aim was to describe and compare primary care under the three ownership models. METHODS: Four aspects of primary care were studied: services, organization, financing and human resources. Interviews were undertaken with 60 managerial and professional staff in 13 community health centres in the Pearl River Delta region in 2010. Three community health centres were selected in the capital city and two were selected from each of the other five cities. Thematic framework analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Government-managed community health centres received the largest public funding, followed by hospital-managed community health centres, while private community health centres received the least. Private community health centres were the smallest in scale and provided lower quality public health services compared with the other two models. Patient out-of-pocket costs accounted for the majority of the revenue in all models of community health centres despite improved government funding for preventive services. General challenges such as the shortage of public funding, the exclusion of migrants in the funding for preventive services, low capacity in human resources and the separation of clinical and preventive care in community health centres were identified in all three models of community health centres. CONCLUSIONS: The ownership and management of a community health centre greatly influence the service it provides. Private community health centres are in a disadvantaged position to deliver high quality clinical and preventive care.

Patients' experiences in different models of community health centers in southern China.

PURPOSE: Current health care reforms in China have an overall goal of strengthening primary care through the establishment and expansion of primary care networks based on community health centers (CHCs). Implementation in urban areas has led to the emergence of different models of ownership and management. The objective of this study was to evaluate the primary care experiences of patients in the Pearl River Delta as measured by the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT) and the relationships with ownership and management in the 3 different models we describe. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted on-site at CHCs in 3 cities within the Pearl River Delta, China, using a multistage cluster sampling method. A validated Mandarin Chinese version of the PCAT-Adult Edition (short version) was adopted to collect information from adult patients regarding their experiences with primary care sources. PCAT scores for individual primary care attributes and total primary care assessment scores were assessed with respect to sociodemographic characteristics, health characteristics, and health care service utilization across 3 primary care models. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred forty (1,440) primary care patients responded to the survey, for an overall response rate of 86.1%. Respondents gave government-owned and -managed CHCs the highest overall PCAT scores when compared with CHCs either managed by hospitals (95.18 vs 90.81; P = .005) or owned by private and social entities (95.18 vs 90.69; P =.007) as a result of better first-contact care (better first-contact utilization) and coordination of care (better service coordination and information system). Factors that were positively and significantly associated with higher overall assessment scores included the presence of a chronic condition (P <.001), having medical insurance (P = .006), and a self-reported good health status (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that government-owned and -managed CHCs may be able to provide better first-contact care in terms of utilization and coordination of care, and may be better at solving the problem of underutilization of the CHCs as the first-contact point of care, one key problem facing the reforms in China.

Performance comparison among the major healthcare financing systems in six cities of the Pearl River Delta region, mainland China.

BACKGROUND: The healthcare system of mainland China is undergoing drastic reform and the optimal models for healthcare financing for provision of primary care will need to be identified. This study compared the performance indicators of the community health centres (CHCs) under different healthcare financing systems in the six cities of the Pearl River Delta region. METHODS: Approximately 300 hypertensive patients were randomly recruited from the computerized chronic disease management records provided by one CHC in each of the six cities in 2011 using a multi-stage cluster random sampling method. The major outcome measures included the treatment rate of hypertension, defined as prescription of ≥ one antihypertensive agent; and the control rate of hypertension, defined as systolic blood pressure levels <140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure levels <90 mmHg in patients without diabetes mellitus, or <130/80 mmHg among patients with concomitant diabetes. Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted with these two measures as outcome variables, respectively, controlling for patients' socio-demographic variables. The financing system (Hospital- vs. Government- vs. private-funded) was the independent variable tested for association with the outcomes. RESULTS: From 1,830 patients with an average age of 65.9 years (SD 12.8), the overall treatment and control rates were 75.4% and 20.2%, respectively. When compared with hospital-funded CHCs, patients seen in the Government-funded (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.462, 95% C.I. 0.325-0.656) and private-funded CHCs (AOR 0.031, 95% C.I. 0.019-0.052) were significantly less likely to be prescribed antihypertensive medication. However, the Government-funded CHC was more likely to have optimal BP control (AOR 1.628, 95% C.I. 1.157-2.291) whilst the privately-funded CHC was less likely to achieve BP control (AOR 0.146, 95% C.I. 0.069-0.310), irrespective of whether antihypertensive drugs were prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: Privately-funded CHCs had the lowest rates of BP treatment and control due to a variety of potential factors as discussed.

How do patients choose their doctors for primary care in a free market?

AIMS: A recent trend in health care system is to provide more choices to the patients. This study surveyed the general public's choices for primary care in Hong Kong which has the setting of free choices for private or public service and also direct access to specialists. METHODS: We used a combined qualitative and quantitative approach. We held five focus group interviews with participants of different socio-economic categories. Information from the focus groups helped to design a questionnaire for random telephone interviews with members of the public aged 18 or above. RESULTS: There were 37 participants in the focus groups and 1647 respondents in the telephone survey. The most important factor for choosing a doctor was proximity to home or workplace, followed by quick relief from the illness. Once continuity of care had been established, distance was of less importance but comprehensive care was valued. Nearly 70% of the public had regular doctors. About 93% of the public would consult specialists directly when they thought they needed a specialist's opinion. Nearly 30% chose specialists for any medical care and 38% preferred specialists to also look after their primary care problems. CONCLUSION: Convenient accessibility was the most important factor for the initial choice of primary care doctors by the general public. The perceived clinical proficiency of the doctor determined future continuity of care. Patients liked to have direct access to specialists. Though some chose to see the specialists even for primary care problems, most people had regular doctors who were likely to have the attributes of family doctors.

Factors associated with practice of colorectal cancer screening among primary care physicians in a Chinese population: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Primary care physicians (PCPs) are influential in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake in the community. This study aims to evaluate the factors associated with PCPs' practice of CRC screening among asymptomatic patients in a Chinese population. METHODS: A validated postal questionnaire was sent to all practicing PCPs who were members of a community-based network in Hong Kong. Three separate rounds of reminder letters were sent to non-respondents. Binary logistic regression analysis was used with ever-referral for CRC screening in the past 12 months as the outcome variable. Predictor variables include physicians' gender, clinical experience, types of practice, and attitudes towards CRC screening. RESULTS: Of 428 eligible physicians, 263 (61.4%) responded. A total of 187 physicians (71.1%) had referred patients for CRC screening in the past 1 year. Among all asymptomatic patients aged 50 years or older, physicians reported referring only 3.0% (1.0-10.0%) [median (interquartile range)] of patients. Colonoscopy (57.0%) and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) (46.4%) were the most commonly recommended tests for these asymptomatic patients. Family history of CRC (58.6%) and patients' concern about CRC (50.2%) were major reasons for referral. PCPs in private practice (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.60, 95% C.I. 1.21-5.59) and those with positive attitude towards CRC screening (aOR 2.27, 95% C.I. 1.15-4.48) were more likely to recommend CRC screening. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' attitude towards CRC screening is a significant determinant of its practice. Future studies should identify and strengthen the influencers of PCPs' attitude to enhance CRC screening rates.

Doctors' personal health care choices: a cross-sectional survey in a mixed public/private setting.

BACKGROUND: Among Western countries, it has been found that physicians tend to manage their own illnesses and tend not have their own independent family physicians. This is recognized as a significant issue for both physicians and, by extension, the patients under their care, resulting in initiatives seeking to address this. Physicians' personal health care practices in Asia have yet to be documented. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional postal questionnaire survey was conducted in Hong Kong, China. All 9570 medical practitioners in Hong Kong registered with the Hong Kong Medical Council in 2003 were surveyed. Chi-square tests and logistic regression models were applied. RESULTS: There were 4198 respondents to the survey; a response rate of 44%. Two-thirds of respondents took care of themselves when they were last ill, with 62% of these self-medicating with prescription medication. Physicians who were graduates of Hong Kong medical schools, those working in general practice and non-members of the Hong Kong College of Family Physicians were more likely to do so. Physician specialty was found to be the most influential reason in the choice of caregiver by those who had ever consulted another medical practitioner. Only 14% chose consultation with a FM/GP with younger physicians and non-Hong Kong medical graduates having a higher likelihood of doing so. Seventy percent of all respondents believed that having their own personal physician was unnecessary. CONCLUSION: Similar to the practice of colleagues in other countries, a large proportion of Hong Kong physicians self-manage their illnesses, take self-obtained prescription drugs and believe they do not need a personal physician. Future strategies to benefit the medical care of Hong Kong physicians will have to take these practices and beliefs into consideration.