Comparing quality of public primary care between Hong Kong and Shanghai using validated patient assessment tools.
Comparing quality of public primary care between Hong Kong and Shanghai using validated patient assessment tools.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0121269
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Griffiths SM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wei X;Li H;Yang N;Wong SY;Owolabi O;Xu J;Shi L;Tang J;Li D;Griffiths SM
基层医疗是中国医改的关键内容。本研究的目的是比较香港（一个受殖民历史影响而拥有成熟的初级保健环境的城市）和上海（中国内地领先的初级保健改革的城市）之间的公共初级保健质量评估；并衡量两个城市的护理公平性。 2011年进行了横断面分层随机抽样调查。数据收集自香港1,994名受访者和上海811名受访者。采用经过验证的中文版初级保健评估工具来评估初级保健在社会经济特征和健康状况方面的感知质量。我们分别分析了香港和上海 391 名和 725 名经常使用公共初级保健的受访者。香港的受访者在首次接触可达性（1.59 vs. 2.15）、护理连续性（2.33 vs. 3.10）、信息协调（2.84 vs. 3.64）、服务可用性综合性（2.43 vs. 3.31）、提供的综合性服务（2.11 vs. 2.40）和总分（23.40 vs. 23.40）方面得分显着较低。 27.40），但首次接触利用率（3.15 vs. 2.54）和服务协调（2.67 vs. 2.40）得分高于上海。收入较高的受访者表示，香港的初级保健总分明显较高，但上海的情况并非如此。上海的受访者表示，公共初级保健的质量优于香港，而上海的公共初级保健的质量往往更加公平。
Primary care is the key element of health reform in China. The objective of this study was to compare patient assessed quality of public primary care between Hong Kong, a city with established primary care environment influenced by its colonial history, and Shanghai, a city leading primary care reform in Mainland China; and to measure the equity of care in the two cities. Cross sectional stratified random sampling surveys were conducted in 2011. Data were collected from 1,994 respondents in Hong Kong and 811 respondents in Shanghai. A validated Chinese version of the primary care assessment tool was employed to assess perceived quality of primary care with respect to socioeconomic characteristics and health status. We analyzed 391 and 725 respondents in Hong Kong and Shanghai, respectively, who were regular public primary care users. Respondents in Hong Kong reported significant lower scores in first contact accessibility (1.59 vs. 2.15), continuity of care (2.33 vs. 3.10), coordination of information (2.84 vs. 3.64), comprehensiveness service availability (2.43 vs. 3.31), comprehensiveness service provided (2.11 vs. 2.40), and the total score (23.40 vs. 27.40), but higher scores in first contact utilization (3.15 vs. 2.54) and coordination of services (2.67 vs. 2.40) when compared with those in Shanghai. Respondents with higher income reported a significantly higher total primary care score in Hong Kong, but not in Shanghai. Respondents in Shanghai reported better quality of public primary care than those in Hong Kong, while quality of public primary care tended to be more equitable in Shanghai.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.1
作者：
Shi, LY;Starfield, B;Regan, J
通讯作者：
Regan, J
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Shi, LY;Macinko, J;Xu, JH
通讯作者：
Xu, JH
影响因子：
17.3
作者：
Crawley, Danielle;Ng, Anthea;Millett, Christopher
通讯作者：
Millett, Christopher
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Macinko, J;Starfield, B;Shi, LY
通讯作者：
Shi, LY
影响因子：
2.7
作者：
Barber, Sarah L.;Yao, Lan
通讯作者：
Yao, Lan