ArticlePloS one2022
Primary care experiences among Brazilian adults: Cross-sectional evidence from the 2019 National Health Survey.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primary care attributes among public health service users and perceived discrimination based on sexual orientation in Brazilian municipalities: evidences from ELSI-Brazil.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- A Decade of Monitoring Primary Healthcare Experiences through the Lens of Inequality.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Study on the evaluation and influencing factors of contracted residents on the coordination of primary medical institutions.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- The quality of migrant patients' primary healthcare experiences and patient-centered medical home achievement by community health centers: results from the China greater bay area study.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- Evaluation of primary health care by users during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe Brazilian Family Health Strategy (FHS) is strongly associated with better health system performance, but there are no nationally-representative data examining individual-level primary care experiences in the country. Here, we examine reports of primary care experiences among adults with different forms of healthcare coverage (FHS, "traditional" public health posts, and private health plans).
methodsData are from the 2019 National Health Survey that included a shortened version of the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT). PCAT questions were administered to a subsample of randomly-selected adults who had a doctor visit within the past 6 months and sought care in a primary care setting (9677 respondents). We used linear regression to examine the association between type of healthcare coverage and PCAT scores adjusted for sex, age, socioeconomic status, health status, geographic region and state of residence.
resultsPrimary care experiences in the sample of Brazilians who had a doctor visit 6 months prior to the survey averaged a modest PCAT score of 57 out of 100. Regression models show that users of the FHS had superior primary care experiences, but with large variations across Brazilian regions and states. Individuals selected to respond to the PCAT questions were more likely to be female, older, and poorer, and to be in worse health than the general population.
conclusionsBrazil's FHS is associated with modest, but higher-reported primary care experiences than both traditional public health posts and those who have a private health plan. Future iterations of the PCAT module could enhance generalizability by including individuals who had a doctor visit in the past 12 (instead of 6) months.
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.