Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31710618›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Primary care in five European countries: A citizens' perspective on the quality of care for children.

Janine A van Til, Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Eline Vlasblom, Paul L Kocken, Magda M Boere-Boonekamp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Janine A van TilUniversity of Twente, Technical Medical Centre, Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5416-5893
Catharina G M Groothuis-OudshoornUniversity of Twente, Technical Medical Centre, Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, the Netherlands.
Eline VlasblomTNO, Department of Child Health, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1287-5026
Paul L KockenTNO, Department of Child Health, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Magda M Boere-BoonekampUniversity of Twente, Technical Medical Centre, Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9707-1056

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAs part of the Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project, this study aimed to answer the following research questions: 1) How do European citizens perceive the quality of primary health care provided for children? And 2) What are their priorities with respect to quality assessment of primary health care aimed at satisfying children's needs?

methodsNine potential attributes of quality of primary care were operationalized in 40 quality aspects. An online survey was used to elicit opinions in a representative sample of citizens of Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Data collection comprised: background characteristics; perceived quality of primary health care for children; and priority setting of quality aspects. Descriptive analysis was performed and differences between groups were tested using Chi-Square test and ANOVA.

resultsValid results were obtained from 2403 respondents. Mean satisfaction with quality of primary care ranged from 5.5 (Poland) to 7.2 (Spain). On average, between 56% (Poland) and 70% (Netherlands) of respondents had a positive perception of the primary health care system for children in their country. The ability of a child to limit their parents' access to the child's medical records was judged most negatively in all countries (average agreement score 28%, range 12-36%). The right of a child to a confidential consultation was judged most differently between countries (average agreement score 61%, range 40-75%). Overall top-10 priorities in ensuring high quality primary care were: timeliness (accessibility); skills/competences, management, facilities (appropriateness); no costs (affordability); information, dignity/respect (continuity); and swift referrals, collaboration (coordination). DISCUSSION: Between countries, significant differences exist in the perceived quality of primary care and priorities with regard to quality assessment. Taking into account the citizens' perspective in decision-making means that aspects with low perceived quality that are highly prioritized warrant further action.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionChildEuropeHealth Care SurveysHumansPrimary Health CareQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID31710618
PMCPMC6844459

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.