Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31272392›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2019

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.

Cuiying Liang, Jie Mei, Yuan Liang, Ruwei Hu, Li Li, Li Kuang

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Primary Health Institutions and Service Quality in China: Implications for Health Policy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Brand equity analysis to increase health care utilization.Journal of public health research · 2020
    Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Cuiying LiangDepartment of Health Administration, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Jie MeiDepartment of Health Administration, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Yuan LiangDepartment of Health Administration, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Ruwei HuDepartment of Health Administration, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Li LiDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, 44106, USA.
Li KuangDepartment of Health Administration, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China. kuangli@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-2330-4205

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeveloped countries have widely implemented a gatekeeping system as a core policy of primary care, also known as the system of first visit in the community. As gatekeepers, general practitioners are responsible for the diagnosis and treatment of residents in the community health centres, and referring patients to specialists as appropriate. After several years of healthcare reform, gatekeeping policy has achieved remarkable success in China. Shenzhen and Dongguan were the first batch of pilot cities that implemented the policy of gatekeeping. This study aims to examine the effects of gatekeeping on the quality of primary care between the gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping groups in these two pilot cities.

methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in five community health centres in Shenzhen and Dongguan cities, both located within Guangdong Province, China, using a validated Chinese version of the Primary Care Assessment Tool-Adult Edition (PCAT-AE) and carrying out face-to-face interviews with patients 18 years and older. Analyses were grouped according to whether or not patients had gatekeepers. Propensity Score Matching was used to control for confounding factors. A chi-square test was used to compare the factors mentioned above and an independent t-test was performed to compare the eight domains of the core functions of primary care between the two groups of patients.

resultsIn total, 765 valid questionnaires were collected for analysis, after matching the sample size were 238 pairs. All the confounding factors observed between the gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping groups were balanced. The PCAT-AE scores for first-contact utilisation (3.29 > 2.66, p < 0.001) and coordination (2.06 > 1.95, p < 0.05) were higher in the gatekeeping group after matching, but the domains of accessibility (1.59 < 1.67, p < 0.05) and continuity (2.26 < 2.40, p < 0.05) were lower. The PCAT-AE mean score was slightly higher in gatekeeping group (1.98 > 1.93, p > 0.05) but without statistical significance.

conclusionThis study demonstrated that gatekeeping has helped to improve first-contact utilisation and coordination of primary care, but that other goals such as continuity and comprehensiveness have been harmed. To establish a sustainable gatekeeping system and to strengthen the core functions of the community comprehensively, the current gatekeeping system needs refinement.

Indexed as

GatekeepingQuality of Health CareAdultAgedChinaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Care ReformHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsPrimary Health CarePropensity ScoreSurveys and QuestionnairesUtilization ReviewCross-sectional surveyGatekeepingPrimary carePropensity score matchingQuality of primary care

Identifiers

PMID31272392
PMCPMC6610915

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.