Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26452648›Full record

Observational studyBMC family practice2015

General practitioners versus other physicians in the quality of primary care: a cross-sectional study in Guangdong Province, China.

Yaming Zou, Xiao Zhang, Yuantao Hao, Leiyu Shi, Ruwei Hu

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yaming ZouDepartment of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, 74 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou, 510080, P.R China. yaming923@qq.com.
Xiao ZhangDepartment of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, 74 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou, 510080, P.R China. 913605732@qq.com.
Yuantao HaoDepartment of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, 74 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou, 510080, P.R China. haoyt@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Leiyu ShiDepartment of Health Policy & Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Primary Care Policy Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA. lshi@jhsph.edu.
Ruwei HuDepartment of Health Management, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, 74 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou, 510080, P.R China. huruwei@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Sun Yat-sen University · CNJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe primary care in China can be provided by general practitioners (GPs) and other physicians (non-GPs). However, China's general practice system has never been really established. Chinese patients tend to consider the quality of primary care provided by GPs much lower than that of non-GPs. Besides, many GPs presently prefer leaving their own positions and seeking better development in big hospitals, which has made the already weak GP system weaker. Yet, few studies have specially compared the quality of primary care provided by Chinese GPs and other physicians and no studies have explored the independent predictors of Chinese GPs' intentions to stay on their current job. In this study, we aimed to compare the quality of primary care offered by GPs with non-GPs and to explore the independent predictors of GPs' future work intentions.

methodsThis cross-sectional study applied multi-stage random cluster sampling methodology. The data were collected from November 2013 to September 2014 in Guangdong Province. In total, 401 effective questionnaires were selected from the physicians. Quality of primary care was assessed using the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT) Provider Part, representing six primary care domains: ongoing care, coordination (i.e., referrals and information systems), comprehensiveness (i.e., service available and service provided), family-centeredness, community orientation and cultural competence.

resultsOf 401 participating physicians, 163 (40.6 %) were GPs. The total PCAT score was 26.32 ± 2.24 which was the sum score of the six domains and represent the quality of primary care. GPs achieved significantly different total scores and scores on three individual scales: comprehensiveness: service available, comprehensiveness: service provided and community orientation. Multiple linear regressions revealed GPs had a higher total score and scores for comprehensiveness: service provided and community orientation after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. In addition, GPs were more likely to intend to stay in their current job in the coming year, and this was associated with their educational level.

conclusionsOur findings showed that GPs reported higher quality of primary care than other physicians, and were more inclined to stay in their current job. With more comprehensive care and community orientation provided by GPs, residents could reach basic medical cares and needn't to crowd into larger hospitals.

Indexed as

AdultChinaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleMiddle AgedPersonnel TurnoverPhysiciansPrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26452648
PMCPMC4600296
OpenAlexW2127569849

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.