Quality of primary health care for chronic diseases in low-resource settings: Evidence from a comprehensive study in rural China
Mingyue Li,Xiaotian Zhang,Haoqing Tang,Huixian Zheng,Ren Long,Xiaoran Cheng,Haozhe Cheng,Jiajia Dong,Xiaohui Wang,Xiaoyan Zhang,Pascal Geldsetzer,Xiaoyun Liu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304294
IF: 3.7
2024-07-25
PLoS ONE
Abstract:Background: There is a paucity of evidence regarding the definition of the quality of primary health care (PHC) in China. This study aims to evaluate the PHC quality for chronic diseases in rural areas based on a modified conceptual framework tailored to the context of rural China. Methods: This comprehensive study, involving a patient survey, a provider survey and chart abstraction, and second-hand registered data, was set in three low-resource counties in rural China from 2021 to 2022. Rural patients with hypertension or type 2 diabetes, and health care workers providing care on hypertension or diabetes were involved. The modified PHC quality framework encompasses three core domains: a competent PHC system (comprehensiveness, accessibility, continuity, and coordination), effective clinical care (assessment, diagnosis, treatment, disease management, and provider competence), and positive user experience (information sharing, shared decision-making, respect for patient's preferences, and family-centeredness). Standardized PHC quality score was generated by arithmetic means or Rasch models of Item Response Theory. Results: This study included 1355 patients, 333 health care providers and 2203 medical records. Ranging from 0 (the worst) to 1 (the best), the average quality score for the PHC system was 0.718, with 0.887 for comprehensiveness, 0.781 for accessibility, 0.489 for continuity, and 0.714 for coordination. For clinical care, average quality was 0.773 for disease assessment, 0.768 for diagnosis, 0.677 for treatment, 0.777 for disease management, and 0.314 for provider competence. The average quality for user experience was 0.727, with 0.933 for information sharing, 0.657 for shared decision-making, 0.936 for respect for patients' preferences, and 0.382 for family-centeredness. The differences in quality among population subgroups, although statistically significant, were small. Conclusion: The PHC quality in rural China has shown strengths and limitations. We identified large gaps in continuity of care, treatment, provider competence, family-centeredness, and shared decision-making. Policymakers should invest more effort in addressing these gaps to improve PHC quality.