ArticleGlobal health action2024
What is successful integration in primary health care: qualitative insights from the Chinese public.
Article in Global health action, 2024. 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.
- Specific service readiness for sick child health services and its relationship with quality of care and user experience in eight low-and middle-income countries.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Article
- Cross-cultural validation of the Chinese version of the lean management scale for nursing services in hospitals.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Why the oldest old in China bypass primary care: culture, family, and health system limitations.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025Article
- From Habit to Justification: A Dual Process Theory Approach to Primary Care Bypassing in China.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChina is transforming its hospital-centric service delivery system into a people-centered integrated care model, with service delivery organized around the health needs and expectations of people.
objectiveTo guide reforms and align with public expectations, this study profiles successful integration in primary health care from the public perspective.
methodsGuided by the rainbow model of integrated care, semi-structured interviews were conducted in six provinces in China. A total of 58 interviewees completed the interviews. Tape-based analysis was used to produce narrative summaries. Researchers listened to the recordings and summarized by 30-s segments. Thematic analysis was performed on summaries to identify thematic families.
resultsFive themes and 16 sub-themes were generated. Respondents' expectations were primarily on three themes: clinical integration (such as interaction between professional and client, continuity, and empowering and engaging individuals), functional integration (such as resources management, quality improvement, and reforming payment systems), and system integration (such as institutional distribution and supervision). Yet a few interviewees mentioned professional integration (multi-disciplinary collaboration) and organizational integration (inter-organizational strategy).
conclusionsQualitative data were used to reveal public perceptions of successful primary health care integration. Service processes, institutional distribution, regulation, resource management, and quality improvement are more visible to the public and will be priorities for future efforts. Whereas inter-organizational strategies and multi-disciplinary collaboration have been shown to facilitate service improvements. Future efforts could consider how policy efforts can be grounded in visible service delivery through management practices.
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.