ArticlePloS one2012
Performance comparison among the major healthcare financing systems in six cities of the Pearl River Delta region, mainland China.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of the quality of hypertension management in primary care between Shanghai and Shenzhen: a cohort study of 3196 patients.Medicine · 2015Trial
- Perceived Barriers to Hypertension Control: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Healthcare Providers in the Ashanti Region of Ghana.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Associations between Primary Healthcare Experiences and Glycemic Control Status in Patients with Diabetes: Results from the Greater Bay Area Study, China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Comparison of the management and control of hypertension by public and private primary care providers in Shenzhen, China.Heliyon · 2021Article
- Improvement of long-term risks of cardiovascular events associated with community-based disease management in Chinese patients of the Xinjiang autonomous region of China.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Primary health care financing interventions: a systematic review and stakeholder-driven research agenda for the Asia-Pacific region.BMJ global health · 2019Article
- Article
- Can integrated health services delivery have an impact on hypertension management? A cross-sectional study in two cities of China.International journal for equity in health · 2016Article
- Types of health care facilities and the quality of primary care: a study of characteristics and experiences of Chinese patients in Guangdong Province, China.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- Health system strengthening and hypertension management in China.Global health research and policy · 2016Review
- A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Perceived Quality of Primary Care by Hypertensive Patients in Shanghai and Shenzhen, China.Medicine · 2015Article
- Changes in the perceived quality of primary care in Shanghai and Shenzhen, China: a difference-in-difference analysis.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2015Article
- Comparing quality of public primary care between Hong Kong and Shanghai using validated patient assessment tools.PloS one · 2015Article
- Simulating the impact of improved cardiovascular risk interventions on clinical and economic outcomes in Russia.PloS one · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe healthcare system of mainland China is undergoing drastic reform and the optimal models for healthcare financing for provision of primary care will need to be identified. This study compared the performance indicators of the community health centres (CHCs) under different healthcare financing systems in the six cities of the Pearl River Delta region.
methodsApproximately 300 hypertensive patients were randomly recruited from the computerized chronic disease management records provided by one CHC in each of the six cities in 2011 using a multi-stage cluster random sampling method. The major outcome measures included the treatment rate of hypertension, defined as prescription of ≥ one antihypertensive agent; and the control rate of hypertension, defined as systolic blood pressure levels <140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure levels <90 mmHg in patients without diabetes mellitus, or <130/80 mmHg among patients with concomitant diabetes. Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted with these two measures as outcome variables, respectively, controlling for patients' socio-demographic variables. The financing system (Hospital- vs. Government- vs. private-funded) was the independent variable tested for association with the outcomes.
resultsFrom 1,830 patients with an average age of 65.9 years (SD 12.8), the overall treatment and control rates were 75.4% and 20.2%, respectively. When compared with hospital-funded CHCs, patients seen in the Government-funded (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.462, 95% C.I. 0.325-0.656) and private-funded CHCs (AOR 0.031, 95% C.I. 0.019-0.052) were significantly less likely to be prescribed antihypertensive medication. However, the Government-funded CHC was more likely to have optimal BP control (AOR 1.628, 95% C.I. 1.157-2.291) whilst the privately-funded CHC was less likely to achieve BP control (AOR 0.146, 95% C.I. 0.069-0.310), irrespective of whether antihypertensive drugs were prescribed.
conclusionsPrivately-funded CHCs had the lowest rates of BP treatment and control due to a variety of potential factors as discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.