Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24621996›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

China tuberculosis policy at crucial crossroads: comparing the practice of different hospital and tuberculosis control collaboration models using survey data.

Xiaolin Wei, Guanyang Zou, John Walley, Jia Yin, Knut Lonnroth, Mukund Uplekar, Weibing Wang, Qiang Sun

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Xiaolin WeiSchool of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Guanyang ZouChina HSD Program, Nuffield Centre for International Health and Development, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
John WalleyNuffield Centre for International Health and Development, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Jia YinSchool of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Knut LonnrothGlobal TB Programme, the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Mukund UplekarGlobal TB Programme, the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Weibing WangSchool of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Qiang SunCenter for Health Management and Policy, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Chinese University of Hong Kong · CNNuffield Health · GBWorld Health Organization · CHFudan University · CNShandong Management University · CN

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently three hospital and tuberculosis (TB) collaboration models exist in China: the dispensary model where TB has to be diagnosed and treated in TB dispensaries, the specialist model where TB specialist hospital also treat TB patients, and the integrated model where TB diagnosis and treatment is integrated into a general hospital. The study compared effects of the three models through exploring patient experience in TB diagnosis and treatment.

methodsWe selected two sites in each model of TB service in four provinces of China. In each site, 50 patients were selected from TB patient registries for a structured questionnaire survey, with a total of 293 patients recruited. All participants were newly registered uncomplicated TB cases without any major complications or resistance to first-line anti-TB drugs, and having successfully completed treatment. Diagnostic and treatment procedures were reviewed from medical charts of the surveyed patients to compare with national guidelines.

resultsSpecialist sites had the highest patient expenditure, hospitalization rates and mostly used second-line anti-TB drugs, while the integrated model reported the opposite. The median health expenditure was USD 1,499 for the specialist sites and USD 306 for the integrated sites, with 83% and 15% patients respectively having unnecessary hospitalization. 74% of the specialist sites and 19% of the integrated sites used second-line anti-TB drugs. Mixed results were identified in the two dispensary sites. One site had median health expenditure of USD 138 with 12% of patients hospitalized, while the other had USD 912 and 65% respectively.

conclusionThe study observed prohibitive financial expenditure and a high level of deviation from national guidelines in all sites, which may be related to the profit-seeking behavior of public hospitals. The study supports the integrated model as the better policy option for future TB health reform in China.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorData CollectionModels, StatisticalAdultChinaCommunicable Disease ControlFemaleHealth PolicyHospitalizationHospitalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID24621996
PMCPMC3951218
OpenAlexW1988606629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.