↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of patient perceived primary care quality in public clinics, public hospitals and private clinics in rural China

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of patient perceived primary care quality in public clinics, public hospitals and private clinics in rural China
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0672-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenhua Wang, Elizabeth Maitland, Stephen Nicholas, Ekaterina Loban, Jeannie Haggerty

Abstract

In rural China, patients have free choice of health facilities for outpatient services. Comparison studies exploring the attributes of different health facilities can help identify optimal primary care service models. Using a representative sample of Chinese provinces, this study aimed to compare patients' rating of three primary care service models used by rural residents (public clinics, public hospitals and private clinics) on a range of health care attributes related to responsiveness. This was a secondary analysis using the household survey data from World Health Organization (WHO) Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE). Using a multistage cluster sampling strategy, eight provinces were selected and finally 3435 overall respondents reporting they had visited public clinics, public hospitals or private clinics during the last year, were included in our analysis. Five items were used to measure patient perceived quality in five domains including prompt attention, communication and autonomy, dignity and confidentiality. ANOVA and Turkey's post hoc tests were used to conduct comparative analysis of five domains. Separate multivariate linear regression models were estimated to examine the association of primary care service models with each domain after controlling for patient characteristics. The distribution of last health facilities visited was: 29.5% public clinics; 31.2% public hospitals and; 39.3% private clinics. Public clinics perform best in all five domains: prompt attention (4.15), dignity (4.17), communication (4.07), autonomy (4.05) and confidentiality (4.02). Public hospitals perform better than private clinics in dignity (4.03 vs 3.94), communication (3.97 vs 3.82), autonomy (3.92 vs 3.74) and confidentiality (3.94 vs 3.73), but equivalently in prompt attention (3.92 vs 3.93). Rural residents who are older, wealthier, and with higher self-rated health status have significantly higher patient perceived quality of care in all domains. Rural public clinics, which share many characteristics with the optimal primary care delivery model, should be strongly strengthened to respond to patients' needs. Better doctor-patient interaction training would improve respect, confidentiality, autonomy and, most importantly, health care quality for rural patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 18%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 32 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 6%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 35 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2022.
All research outputs
#14,083,124
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,408
of 1,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,261
of 323,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#44
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.