ArticleJMA journal2019
Development and Pilot Testing of Quality Indicators for Primary Care in Japan.
Article in JMA journal, 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.
- Mapping Quality Indicators in Primary Health Care: A Scoping Review of Contemporary Approaches and Persistent Measurement Gaps.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comprehensiveness in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.The Milbank quarterly · 2025Article
- Feasibility and perceptions of a benzodiazepine deprescribing quality improvement initiative for primary care providers in Japan.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Poor glycemic control and associated factors among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Author reply to "The importance of patients' experience in assessing the quality of primary care".Journal of general and family medicine · 2020Article
- Quality Improvement Based on Quality Indicators Editorial on the Article "Development and Pilot-testing of Quality Indicators for Primary Care in Japan".JMA journal · 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
introductionTo the best of our knowledge, no quality indicators (QIs) for primary care provided by local clinics have yet been developed in Japan. We aimed to develop valid and applicable QIs to evaluate primary care in Japan.
methodsTwo focus group interviews were held to identify conceptual categories. Existing indicators for these categories were identified, and initial sets of potential QIs were developed. Using a modified Delphi appropriateness method, a multidisciplinary expert panel then developed and selected the QIs. Feasibility and applicability of these QIs were then confirmed in pilot testing at six local clinics in Hokkaido, Japan. To determine patient acceptance of these quality improvement activities, the survey asked two questions, "Do you think it is preferable that the patients of this clinic be periodically surveyed?" and "Do you think it is preferable that this clinic periodically undergo an external quality review by an independent body?"
resultsSeven categories emerged from the focus group discussions as key components of primary care in Japan. Thirty-nine QIs under five categories (Comprehensive care/Standardized care, Access, Communication, Co-ordination, and Understanding of patient background) were finally selected and named the QIs for Primary Care Practice in Japan. In pilot testing at six primary care clinics in 2015, 65.4% of patients answered favorably to the idea that clinics should conduct regular patient surveys, and 71.8% answered favorably to the idea that clinics should undergo periodic external quality review by an independent body.
conclusionsWe developed QIs to assess primary care services provided by clinics in Japan, for the first time. Although further refinement is required, establishment of these QIs is the first step in quality improvement for primary care practices in Japan.
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.