ArticleBMC public health2025
The difference in patient-centered medical experiences between public fertility care and private fertility care in China: a multicenter cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC public health, 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.
- Patient-Centered Fertility Care in Kazakhstan: Preliminary Cultural Adaptation of a Fertility-Care Survey and Patient-Staff Perception Gaps in Two Assisted-Reproduction Clinics.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Measuring supply-demand coupling coordination in China's older adult care services: spatiotemporal evolution, spatial spillover effects, and driving factors based on the spatial Durbin model.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHigh-quality fertility care should be effective and safe but also patient-centered. We analyzed the difference in the patient-centered medical experiences between public and private fertility care in China, aiming to provide data support and a decision-making basis for optimizing the allocation of reproductive health care resources, and improving patient experience and compliance.
methodsIn this study, a multicenter cross sectional study was distributed among 1900 infertile Chinese patients at 10 reproductive medicine centres from July 2021 to April 2022. Patients' experiences of infertility patients were analyzed. Univariate analysis and multivariate regression model analysis were used to analysis the factors influencing the differences in patients' medical experiences between public and private fertility care.
resultsThe questionnaire was completed by 1694 infertile couples (response rate of 89.16%) from 10 centres. Of the eight subscales, 'care organization' received the best ratings, and 'information' received the worst ratings. The total score of private fertility care was significantly higher than that of public fertility care. The subscale scores for 'accessibility', 'information' and 'continuity and transition' were significantly higher for private fertility care than for public fertility care. Further univariate and multivariate analyses found that the distance from the hospital, family income and pregnancy status were the main influencing factors of the patients' medical experiences with public fertility care, while the stage of fertility treatment, infertility duration and pregnancy status were the main influencing factors of the patients' medical experiences with private fertility care.
conclusionsThe subscale of patient-centered medical experiences for 'accessibility', 'information' and 'continuity and transition' were significantly higher for private fertility care than for public fertility care.
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.