ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Impact of primary care benefits on healthcare utilisation and estimated out-of-pocket expenses in urban, rural and remote settings in the Philippines.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing Healthcare Services for Vulnerable Aging Populations: A Comparative Analysis of Puerto Rico and International Case Studies.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of patient satisfaction after primary care system interventions: a follow-up study.BMJ open quality · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to determine the effects of primary care interventions on healthcare utilisation and estimated out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses in selected urban, rural and remote settings in the Philippines. METHODOLOGY: Context-specific measures relating to expanding healthcare provider networks, augmenting the health human workforce and subsidising transportation costs were implemented to strengthen primary care systems. In this study, two key outcomes were monitored: (1) monthly healthcare utilisation measured by the total number of outpatient consultations per site and (2) change in OOP expenses from baseline to endline within a 1 year study period.
resultsAll sites had a positive trend in monthly outpatient consultations in healthcare utilisation over 1 year. The remote site had the steepest increase in outpatient consultations, with a 401% increase compared with the baseline during the peak of consultations at month 7. The urban site had a 62% increase in outpatient consultations from baseline to month 6, while the rural site had a 251% increase from baseline to month 11, which corresponded to the peak month in terms of the number of outpatient consultations. The rural site had the largest decrease in estimated OOP expenses (50.3% reduction, 95% CI -88 to -13), followed by the remote site (33.2% reduction, 95% CI -67,+1) and the urban site (16.0% reduction, 95% CI -65,+33).
conclusionThe rural site showed a significant reduction in estimated OOP expenses and an increase in healthcare utilisation. The remote site had the steepest increase in utilisation, but the reduction in estimated OOP expenses was not statistically significant. The urban site experienced the lowest increase in utilisation, and the smallest reduction in estimated OOP expenses, which was also not statistically significant. Implementing primary care benefits will necessitate contextualised approaches to avoid the inadvertent aggravation of inequities in healthcare.
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.