Differences of Community Health Service Quality Evaluation in China and Abroad:a Systematic Review
ZHANG Qianqian,JIN Hua,YU Dehua
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2021.00.339
2022-01-01
Chinese General Practice
Abstract:BackgroundIn China, the assessment of community health services has been increasingly valued as the development of such services advances, but relevant research is still at the exploratory stage. Therefore, establishing a community health service quality evaluation system suitable for China's national conditions is critical to domestic development of such services.ObjectiveTo perform a review of studies about community health service quality evaluation in China and abroad to identify the similarities and differences in terms of assessment perspectives and contents between them, providing theoretic evidence for further implementation of such evaluations in China.MethodsStudies regarding community health service quality evaluation were systematically searched in databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, CQVIP, Wanfang and PubMed from inception to October 15, 2020. Two researchers performed literature screening, data extraction, and comparative analysis of community health service quality evaluation at home and abroad by assessment perspectives and contents, separately. Descriptive analysis was used to analyze the comparative results.ResultsIn total, 62 articles in English, and 16 articles in Chinese were included, among which 10 in English and 7 in Chinese evaluated the quality of community health services in terms of the major factors of features of community health services (first contact, humanization, accessibility, continuity, coordination and comprehensiveness) . The top 3 highlights of these 10 foreign articles were coordination (7/10) , humanization (6/10) and accessibility (5/10) , while those of 7 domestic articles were humanization (6/7) , comprehensiveness (4/7) and accessibility (4/7) . Fifty-two articles in English and 9 articles in Chinese assessed the quality of specific community health services, and these foreign articles mostly focused on the management of chronic diseases〔type 2 diabetes (12/52) , cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases (11/52) , hypertension (7/52) , respiratory diseases (7/52) , chronic kidney disease (5/52) 〕, followed by the use of antibiotics (5/52) , cancer screening (5/52) , medication safety (5/52) , child health care (5/52) and geriatric care (5/52) , while domestic articles mostly focused on the management of chronic diseases〔type 2 diabetes (3/9) , hypertension (3/9) 〕, and maternal health management (3/9) .ConclusionThe quality of community health services is increasingly valued by relevant academic circles. Compared to foreign studies, domestic studies are far less concerned about first contact and coordination, and the assessed specific services in which are not complete, with no quality assessment of diagnosis and treatment of common diseases and frequently-occurring diseases. It is suggested to address the above-mentioned issues to promote the community health service quality evaluation, and improve the depth and breadth of relevant research, thereby the community health service quality evaluation system could be improved constantly.