Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37506039›Full record

SynthesisHealth policy and planning2023

Health and health system impacts of China's comprehensive primary healthcare reforms: a systematic review.

Chang Cai, Shangzhi Xiong, Christopher Millett, Jin Xu, Maoyi Tian, Thomas Hone

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health policy and planning, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Chang CaiPublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Reynolds Building, St Dunstan's Road, London W6 8RP, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0883-5021
Shangzhi XiongThe George Institute for Global Health, Faulty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Level 5, 1 King Street Newtown, Sydney 2042, Australia.
Christopher MillettPublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Reynolds Building, St Dunstan's Road, London W6 8RP, UK.
Jin XuChina Center for Health Development Studies, Peking University Health Science Center, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100191, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6364-0887
Maoyi TianThe George Institute for Global Health, Faulty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Level 5, 1 King Street Newtown, Sydney 2042, Australia.
Thomas HonePublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Reynolds Building, St Dunstan's Road, London W6 8RP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

China's comprehensive primary healthcare (PHC) reforms since 2009 aimed to deliver accessible, efficient, equitable and high-quality healthcare services. However, knowledge on the system-wide effectiveness of these reforms is limited. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on the reforms' health and health system impacts. In 13 August 2022, international databases and three Chinese databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies and controlled before-after studies. Included studies assessed large-scale PHC policies since 2009; had a temporal comparator and a control group and assessed impacts on expenditures, utilization, care quality and health outcomes. Study quality was assessed using Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions, and results were synthesized narratively. From 49 174 identified records, 42 studies were included-all with quasi-experimental designs, except for one randomized control trial. Nine studies were assessed as at low risk of bias. Only five low- to moderate-quality studies assessed the comprehensive reforms as a whole and found associated increases in health service utilization, whilst the other 37 studies examined single-component policies. The National Essential Medicine Policy (N = 15) and financing reforms (N = 11) were the most studied policies, whilst policies on primary care provision (i.e. family physician policy and the National Essential Public Health Services) were poorly evaluated. The PHC reforms were associated with increased primary care utilization (N = 17) and improved health outcomes in people with non-communicable diseases (N = 8). Evidence on healthcare costs was unclear, and impacts on patients' financial burden and care quality were understudied. Some studies showed disadvantaged regions and groups that accrued greater benefits (N = 8). China's comprehensive PHC reforms have made some progress in achieving their policy objectives including increasing primary care utilization, improving some health outcomes and reducing health inequalities. However, China's health system remains largely hospital-centric and further PHC strengthening is needed to advance universal health coverage.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsHealth Care ReformChinaHealth PolicyHealth ServicesHumansChinahealth reformspolicy evaluationsPrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID37506039
PMCPMC10566320

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.