ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2017
Challenges for gatekeeping: a qualitative systems analysis of a pilot in rural China.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Influencing the Implementation of Foreign Innovations in Organization and Management of Health Service Delivery in China: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in health services · 2021Pooled it
- Effectiveness of a Primary-Care-Centered Integrated Care Intervention for Stratified Cardiovascular Risk Control in China: Study Protocol for a Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Health care science · 2026Article
- Community Hypertension Patients' Preferences for Family Doctor Service Packages in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Why do they sign but not consult? A study on the effectiveness of China's family doctor contract services from the perspective of patient-doctor interaction.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The association between china's primary health care reform and inequalities in primary care utilisation and maternal mortality: a quasi-experimental longitudinal study from 2010 to 2019.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- The equivalent value (EV)-based workload assessment of primary healthcare workers in Beijing, China.Human resources for health · 2025Article
- Impact of China's primary healthcare reforms on utilisation, payments and self-reported health: a quasi-experimental analysis of a middle-aged and older cohort 2011-2018.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Healthcare preferences of chronic disease patients under China's hierarchical medical system: an empirical study of Tianjin's reform practice.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Survival Disparities among Cancer Patients Based on Mobility Patterns: A Population-Based Study.Health data science · 2024Article
- Performance of the Health System Network in Formosa, Argentina, in the Diagnosis of Leprosy.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2023Article
- How to do (or not to do)…using causal loop diagrams for health system research in low and middle-income settings.Health policy and planning · 2022Article
- Can a multitiered copayment system affect people's healthcare-seeking behavior? A case study of Wenzhou, China.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Urban-Rural Differences in Patterns and Associated Factors of Multimorbidity Among Older Adults in China: A Cross-Sectional Study Based on Apriori Algorithm and Multinomial Logistic Regression.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Do patients bypass primary care for common health problems under a free-access system? Experience of Taiwan.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Urban-rural disparity in prevalence of multimorbidity in China: a cross-sectional nationally representative study.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Performance and Sociodemographic Determinants of Excess Outpatient Demand of Rural Residents in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Effectiveness of primary care gatekeeping: difference-in-differences evaluation of a pilot scheme in China.BMJ global health · 2020Article
- Article
- Facilitators and barriers to implement the family doctor contracting services in China: findings from a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- The effects of gatekeeping on the quality of primary care in Guangdong Province, China: a cross-sectional study using primary care assessment tool-adult edition.BMC family practice · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGatekeeping involves a generalist doctor who controls patients' access to specialist care, and has been discussed as an important policy option to rebalance the primary care and hospital sectors in low- and middle-income countries, despite thin evidence. A gatekeeping pilot in a Chinese rural setting launched in 2013 has offered an opportunity to study the functioning of gatekeeping under such conditions.
methodsIn this qualitative study within a mixed-method evaluation of the gatekeeping pilot, we developed an innovative systems analysis method, combining the World Health Organisation categorisation of health system building blocks, the "Framework" approach of policy analysis and causal loop analysis. We conducted in-depth interviews with 20 stakeholders from 4 groups (patients, doctors, health facility managers and government administrators) in the pilot area over two years. Based on information extracted from the interviews, we drew a causal loop diagram which highlighted the feedback loops within the system that had self-reinforcing or self-balancing characteristics, and used the diagram to examine systematically the mechanisms of intended and actual functioning of gatekeeping and analyse the systems level challenges that affected the effectiveness of gatekeeping.
resultsHad the gatekeeping pilot programme worked as intended, it would incentivize both providers and patients to increase service utilization at primary care level, as well as establish and enhance two reinforcing feedback loops to shift balance towards primary care. However, a performance-based salary policy undermined the motivation for clinical primary care. Furthermore, the primary care providers suffered from three reinforcing feedback loops (related to primary care capacity, human resource sustainability, patients' faith) that trapped primary care development in vicious cycles. At the interface between hospitals and primary care providers, there were also feedback loops exacerbating the existing hospital dominance. These feedback loops were intensified by the unintended consequences of concurrent policies (restrictions on technologies and medicines) and delayed reform in hospitals. Furthermore, the gatekeeping policy itself faced resistance to further development, due to the prevailing ineffective and ritualistic nature of gatekeeping, which formed a balancing loop.
conclusionsThe study shows that the intended benefits of gatekeeping were illusionary largely due to weak and worsening primary care conditions, and delay, ineffectiveness or unintended consequences of several other ongoing reforms. One particularly dangerous development of the system, which deserves urgent attention, is the harming of the professional prospects of primary care doctors. Our findings highlight the need for coordination and prioritization in designing policies related to primary care and managing changes with multiple on-going reforms. The approach used here facilitates comprehensive study of intended and actual mechanisms, and demonstrates the challenges of a complex health system intervention in a dynamic environment.
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.