Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33711999›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Assessing a national policy on strengthening chronic care in primary care settings of a middle-income country using patients' perspectives.

Wichai Aekplakorn, Paibul Suriyawongpaisal, Samrit Srithamrongsawadi, Phanuwich Kaewkamjonchai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Development of a User-Centred Chronic Care Model for Patients With Heart Failure in a Limited-Resource Setting: A Codesign Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Wichai AekplakornDepartment of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Ratchathewi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.
Paibul SuriyawongpaisalDepartment of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Ratchathewi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.
Samrit SrithamrongsawadiDepartment of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Ratchathewi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.
Phanuwich KaewkamjonchaiDepartment of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Ratchathewi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand. phanuwich.kae@mahidol.ac.th.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3591-7401

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo improve care for patients with chronic diseases, a recent policy initiative in Thailand focused on strengthening primary care based on the concept of Chronic Care Model (CCM). This study aimed to assess the perception of patients about the health care services after the implementation.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of 4071 patients with hypertension and/or diabetes registered with 27 primary care units and 11 hospital non-communicable diseases (NCDs) clinics in 11 provinces. The patients were interviewed using a validated questionnaire of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care. Upgraded primary care units (PCUs) were ordinary PCUs with the multi-professional team including a physician. Trained upgraded PCUs were upgraded PCUs with the training input. Structural equation modeling was used to create subscale scores for CCM and 5 A model characteristics. Mixed effect logistic models were employed to examine the association of subscales (high vs low score) of patient perception of the care quality with type of PCUs.

resultsCompared to hospital NCD clinics, ordinary PCUs were the best in the odds of receiving high score for every CCM subscale (ORs: 1.46-1.85; p < 0.05), whereas the trained upgraded PCUs were better in terms of follow-up (ORs:1.37; p < 0.05), and the upgraded PCU did not differ in all domains. According to the 5 A model subscales, patient assessment also revealed better performance of ordinary PCUs in all domains compared to hospital NCD clinics whereas upgraded PCUs and trained upgraded PCUs did so in some domains. Seeing the same doctor on repeated visits (ORs: 1.82-2.17; p < 0.05) or having phone contacts with the providers (ORs:1.53-1.99; p < 0.05) were found beneficial using CCM subscales and the 5A model subscales. However, patient assessment by both subscales did not demonstrate a statistically significant association across health insurance status.

conclusionsThe policy implementation might not satisfy the patients' perception on quality of chronic care according to the CCM and the 5A model subscale. However, the arrangement of chronic care with patients seeing the same doctors or patients having telephone contact with healthcare providers may satisfy the patients' perceived needs.

Indexed as

PolicyPrimary Health CareChronic DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesThailandA middle-income countryChronic careNCDPACICPatients’ perspectivePolicyPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID33711999
PMCPMC7953793

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.