ArticleBMC health services research2026
Comparing patient and healthcare professional preferences for patient-centered integrated care in China: a best-worst scaling study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince 2016, China has implemented integrated care reforms to address service fragmentation. However, there is limited evidence regarding the preferences of key stakeholders for the various dimensions of integrated care. This study aims to quantify and compare the priorities of patients and healthcare professionals to inform the ongoing development of patient-centered integrated care in China.
methodsThis study employed a best-worst scaling object case survey to evaluate 14 attributes derived from the validated Chinese Patient-Centered Integrated Care scale. In 2023, the survey was administered using distinct methods for each group: computer-assisted, face-to-face interviews for patients with chronic diseases, and a self-administered online survey for primary healthcare professionals. Each respondent completed 13 choice tasks, each containing seven attributes. Data were analysed using the counting approach and mixed logit models to estimate the relative importance (RI) of each attribute.
resultsThe final analysis included 82 patients and 774 healthcare professionals. A fundamental divergence in preference structures was found. Patient preferences were highly concentrated, with RI scores ranging widely from 0.2% to 33.5%; ‘Accessibility of medicine’ (RI: 33.5%) and ‘Respectfulness’ (RI: 31.0%) were the highest priorities. In contrast, healthcare professional preferences were more balanced, with RI scores ranging from 3.6% to 11.7%; ‘Accessibility of technology’ (RI: 11.7%) and ‘Comprehensive care’ (RI: 11.5%) were most valued. Statistically significant preference heterogeneity was observed within each group, with factors such as age and gender identified as significant sources of variation.
conclusionsPatients and healthcare professionals in China hold fundamentally different priorities for integrated care. Patients prioritized medication access and humanistic aspects of care, whereas professionals prioritized technology access. These findings provide valuable evidence to guide the development of integrated care aligned with stakeholder needs, and future larger-scale, nationwide studies are needed to provide more robust evidence.
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.