ArticleJournal of general and family medicine2019
Quality of primary care provided in community clinics in Japan.
Article in Journal of general and family medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sustained Improvement in Urine Testing Quality Indicator Through an Audit-and-Feedback Intervention in Japanese Primary Care: A Before-and-After Study.Journal of general and family medicine · 2026Article
- Comprehensiveness in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.The Milbank quarterly · 2025Article
- Understanding the quality of diabetes care in Japan: a systematic review of the literature.Diabetology international · 2022Review
- Quality indicators for primary care and patients' experience: A leap beyond.Journal of general and family medicine · 2020Article
- Author reply to "The importance of patients' experience in assessing the quality of primary care".Journal of general and family medicine · 2020Article
- Quality of primary care provided in community clinics in Japan.Journal of general and family medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality indicators (QIs) for primary care are used worldwide. To date, however, the use of QIs to assess the quality of primary care in Japan has not been reported besides diabetes care. Here, we used QIs to evaluate the quality of primary care services provided by local clinics in Japan.
methodsFour primary care clinics participated in the retrospective medical chart review in 2015. To assess primary care quality, we used 18 process-oriented QIs from the Quality Indicators for Primary Care practice in Japan (QIPC-J) those we previously developed by using a modified Delphi appropriateness method, which comprises 39 QIs in five categories (Comprehensive care/Standardized care, Access, Communication, Coordination, and Understanding of patient's background). Adult subjects were selected from among patients who visited each clinic within the previous one year using medical claims data. We collected data by reviewing medical charts, and calculated the quality score for each QI and clinic.
resultsA cumulative total of 4330 medical charts were reviewed. The overall quality score was 31.5%. Adherence to QIs ranged from 3.2% to 85.6%. Some quality scores varied substantially between clinics but the overall quality of care among clinics varied less, from 29.2% to 34.0%.
conclusionsThe quality of primary care services provided by local clinics in Japan varies by both QI and clinic. Strategies to improve the quality of care are warranted.
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.