PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Li, Mingyue AU - Zhang, Xiaotian AU - Tang, Haoqing AU - Zheng, Huixian AU - Long, Ren AU - Cheng, Xiaoran AU - Cheng, Haozhe AU - Dong, Jiajia AU - Wang, Xiaohui AU - Zhang, Xiaoyan AU - Geldsetzer, Pascal AU - Liu, Xiaoyun TI - Quality of primary healthcare for chronic diseases in low-resource settings: evidence from a mixed methods study in rural China AID - 10.1101/2024.05.10.24307203 DP - 2024 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2024.05.10.24307203 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/13/2024.05.10.24307203.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/13/2024.05.10.24307203.full AB - Background There is a paucity of evidence regarding the definition of the quality of primary healthcare (PHC) in China. This study aims to develop a modified conceptual framework PHC quality based on the context of rural China and evaluate the PHC quality for chronic diseases in rural areas.Methods This mixed-methods 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, health care workers providing care on hypertension or diabetes were involved. Standardized PHC quality score was generated by arithmetic means or Rasch models of Item Response Theory.Results A modified PHC quality framework was presented. High-quality PHC for chronic diseases 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 patients’ preferences, and family-centeredness). This study included 1355 patients, 333 healthcare providers and 2203 medical records. Ranging from 0 (the worst) to 1 (the best), the average quality score for PHC system was 0.718, with 0.887 for comprehensiveness, 0.781 for accessibility, 0.489 for continuity, 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 showed 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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementYesAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the Institute Review Board (IRB) of Peking University Health Science Center (IRB00001052-22155). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants and health organizations prior to questionnaire.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Not ApplicableThe datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to limitations of ethical approval involving the personal data and anonymity but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.