ArticleAIMS public health2026
Evaluation of the quality of public health services: A study in the Brazilian context.
Article in AIMS public health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated Brazilians' perceptions of public health service quality using a multidimensional approach with a national sample. A survey involving 1229 respondents from all regions of Brazil was analyzed through descriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analysis to validate the measurement model. Service quality was assessed using the PUBLICSERV scale, comprising seven dimensions: tangible aspects, reliability, relationship, public value, transparency, equality and legality, and satisfaction. The model showed good fit and validity. Findings revealed that most Brazilians perceive service quality as average across the dimensions. Public value received the highest ratings, highlighting recognition of the services' social importance. Tangible aspects and reliability were lowest, pointing to shortcomings in infrastructure and consistency of care. Transparency was evaluated as moderate, while equality and legality reflected perceived fairness. The relationship dimension was rated positively, suggesting empathy and commitment from health professionals. Overall, satisfaction was reported, though tempered by structural and consistency issues. The results emphasize the value of multidimensional assessments in understanding user experiences, suggesting that improvements in infrastructure and consistency are important to strengthen public health delivery, while maintaining the positive aspects recognized by users, such as social relevance, fairness, and professional commitment.
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.