Comparing quality of primary healthcare between public and private providers in China: study protocol of a cross-sectional study using unannounced standardised patients in seven provinces of China.
Comparing quality of primary healthcare between public and private providers in China: study protocol of a cross-sectional study using unannounced standardised patients in seven provinces of China.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040792
复制
发表时间：
2021-01-12
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Yip CW
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Xu D;Pan J;Dai X;Hu M;Cai Y;He H;Zhang Y;Liao J;Chen Y;Gong W;Zhou Z;Zhang N;Wang X;Chan KCG;Ying X;Cai Y;Wang R;Xue Q;Yip CW
自2009年以来，中国政府在新一轮国家卫生改革中鼓励私营部门提供医疗服务，包括初级卫生保健（PHC）。然而，关于私营部门在实现全民健康覆盖方面的作用的辩论仍在继续，缺乏理论和经验证据的支持。本研究旨在比较中国七个省的私营和公共提供者之间的PHC服务质量，使用未经宣布的标准化患者（USP）。我们正在开发和验证13个在PHC环境中最常见的USP案例。USP将评估六个质量领域：有效性、安全性、以患者为中心、效率、及时性和公平性。USP将对7个省的705个公共和521个私人初级保健机构进行2200次访问，采用多阶段聚类抽样设计。使用每个USP提供商作为分析单位，我们将首先比较私人和公共提供商之间的原始质量差异，然后使用倾向得分加权分析所有权类型和质量的关联。该研究主要由中国国家自然科学基金资助（#71974211，#71874116和#72074163），也得到了中国医学委员会的支持（#16-260，#18-300和#18-301），并获得了中山大学的伦理批准（#2019-024）。经过验证的USP工具和本研究中收集的数据将在研究的主要分析后免费提供给公众。中国临床试验注册中心：#ChiCTR 2000032773。
The Chinese government has encouraged the development of private sector in delivering healthcare, including primary healthcare (PHC) in the new round of national health reform since 2009. However, the debate about the role of the private sector in achieving universal health coverage continues with poor support from theories and empirical evidence. This study intends to compare the quality of PHC services between the private and public providers in seven provinces in China, using unannounced standardised patients (USPs). We are developing and validating 13 USP cases most commonly observed in the PHC setting. Six domains of quality will be assessed by the USP: effectiveness, safety, patient centredness, efficiency, timeliness and equity. The USP will make 2200 visits to 705 public and 521 private PHC institutions across seven provinces, following a multistage clustered sample design. Using each USP-provider encounter as the analytical unit, we will first descriptively compare the raw differences in quality between the private and public providers and then analyse the association of ownership types and quality, using propensity score weighting. The study was primarily funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (#71974211, #71874116 and # 72074163) and was also supported by the China Medical Board (#16-260, #18-300 and #18-301), and have received ethical approval from Sun Yat-sen University (#2019–024). The validated USP tool and the data collected in this study will be freely available for the public after the primary analysis of the study. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: #ChiCTR2000032773.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
发表时间：
2009-08-07
期刊：
Implementation science : IS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Damschroder LJ;Aron DC;Keith RE;Kirsh SR;Alexander JA;Lowery JC
通讯作者：
Lowery JC
非营利企业的作用
影响因子：
6.4
作者：
HANSMANN, HB
通讯作者：
HANSMANN, HB
影响因子：
2
作者：
Li, Fan;Zaslavsky, Alan M.;Landrum, Mary Beth
通讯作者：
Landrum, Mary Beth
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
DONABEDIAN, A
通讯作者：
DONABEDIAN, A
DOI：
10.1016/s2214-109x(18)30386-3
发表时间：
2018-11
期刊：
The Lancet. Global health
影响因子：
--
作者：
Kruk ME;Gage AD;Arsenault C;Jordan K;Leslie HH;Roder-DeWan S;Adeyi O;Barker P;Daelmans B;Doubova SV;English M;García-Elorrio E;Guanais F;Gureje O;Hirschhorn LR;Jiang L;Kelley E;Lemango ET;Liljestrand J;Malata A;Marchant T;Matsoso MP;Meara JG;Mohanan M;Ndiaye Y;Norheim OF;Reddy KS;Rowe AK;Salomon JA;Thapa G;Twum-Danso NAY;Pate M
通讯作者：
Pate M