Primary Health Institutions and Service Quality in China: Implications for Health Policy

Abstract

Background: To protect and improve the health of populations, the important role of primary health institutions has been strengthened through a series of health policies, especially the implementation of a national hierarchical diagnosis and treatment system. In this light, we aim to evaluate the development of primary health institutions between 2013, before the implementation of the hierarchical diagnosis and treatment system, and 2020 as well as people’s perception of the quality of primary healthcare services. Method: The national-level data (e.g., the numbers of primary health institutions, personnel, beds, visits, and hospitalizations) regarding primary health institutions were collected from the Health Statistics Yearbook, and the perceptions of the quality of primary healthcare services were collected by a web-based questionnaire survey using an internationally recognized assessment tool (i.e., PCAT-AE). In total, 10,850 persons were surveyed, and 10,419 participants were incorporated into the final analysis after removing invalid questionnaires. A descriptive statistical analysis (i.e., frequency and percentage) was used to analyze the national-level characteristics of primary health institutions and people’s perceptions of the quality of primary healthcare services. Moreover, a logistic regression model was used to analyze the factors influencing the perceptions of the quality of primary healthcare services. Results: From the macro perspective, the number of primary health institutions, beds, and personnel per 10 thousand residents slightly increased from 2013 to 2020, especially in the eastern and central areas. However, the average number of visits and the hospitalization rate in primary health institutions showed a decrease, especially in central and eastern areas. Among participants, 92.2% (9606/10,419) of them had previously sought healthcare services in primary health institutions, and most were seeking general outpatient services (57.06–63.45%), followed by medicine purchasing (16.49–21.51%), physical examinations (9.91–11.49%), preventive health services (5.11–6.48%), and hospitalization services (3.17–5.67%). The total perception scores on the quality of primary healthcare services reported by the participants were 26.19 and 27.00 for rural and urban areas, respectively, which accounted for 65.5% and 67.5% of the total score, respectively, and 26.62, 26.86, and 25.89 for the eastern, central, and western areas, respectively, with percentages of 66.6%, 67.2%, and 64.7%. The perception score on the quality among people contracted with a family doctor (29.83, 74.58%) was much higher than those who were not (25.25, 63.13%), and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Moreover, people who were female, married, had higher incomes, and were diagnosed with various diseases had better perceptions of the primary healthcare services compared to their counterparts (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Improvements were seen for primary health institutions, especially in terms of hardware resources such as beds and personnel. However, the service utilization in primary health institutions did not improve between 2013 and 2020. The perception score on the quality of primary healthcare was moderate to low in rural and urban as well as eastern, central, and western areas, but it was significantly higher among people contracted with a family doctor than those who were not. Therefore, it is important for policy makers to take or adjust measures focusing on quality improvement and increasing the service utilization in primary health institutions with good first contact, accessibility, continuity, comprehensiveness, and coordination, such as raising the enrollment rate of family doctors and promoting the provision of high-quality services.