Primary care in five European countries: A citizens’ perspective on the quality of care for children
Autoři:
Janine A. van Til aff001; Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn aff001; Eline Vlasblom aff002; Paul L. Kocken aff002; Magda M. Boere-Boonekamp aff001
Působiště autorů:
University of Twente, Technical Medical Centre, Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, the Netherlands
aff001; TNO, Department of Child Health, Leiden, The Netherlands
aff002; Public Health and Primary Care Department of LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands
aff003
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie:
Research Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224550
Souhrn
Objective
As part of the Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project, this study aimed to answer the following research questions: 1) How do European citizens perceive the quality of primary health care provided for children? And 2) What are their priorities with respect to quality assessment of primary health care aimed at satisfying children’s needs?
Methods
Nine potential attributes of quality of primary care were operationalized in 40 quality aspects. An online survey was used to elicit opinions in a representative sample of citizens of Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Data collection comprised: background characteristics; perceived quality of primary health care for children; and priority setting of quality aspects. Descriptive analysis was performed and differences between groups were tested using Chi-Square test and ANOVA.
Results
Valid results were obtained from 2403 respondents. Mean satisfaction with quality of primary care ranged from 5.5 (Poland) to 7.2 (Spain). On average, between 56% (Poland) and 70% (Netherlands) of respondents had a positive perception of the primary health care system for children in their country. The ability of a child to limit their parents’ access to the child’s medical records was judged most negatively in all countries (average agreement score 28%, range 12–36%). The right of a child to a confidential consultation was judged most differently between countries (average agreement score 61%, range 40–75%). Overall top-10 priorities in ensuring high quality primary care were: timeliness (accessibility); skills/competences, management, facilities (appropriateness); no costs (affordability); information, dignity/respect (continuity); and swift referrals, collaboration (coordination).
Discussion
Between countries, significant differences exist in the perceived quality of primary care and priorities with regard to quality assessment. Taking into account the citizens’ perspective in decision-making means that aspects with low perceived quality that are highly prioritized warrant further action.
Klíčová slova:
Germany – Health care providers – Child health – Children – Netherlands – Poland – Primary care – Spain
Zdroje
1. MacDougall H. Reinventing public health: a new perspective on the health of Canadians and its international impact. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(11):955–9. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.046912 17933952.
2. Dahlgren G, Whitehead M. A Framework for Assessing Health Systems from the Public’s Perspective: The Alps Approach. International Journal of Health Services. 2007;37(2):363–78. doi: 10.2190/U814-6X80-N787-807J 17665729
3. Kringos DS, Boerma WG, Hutchinson A, van der Zee J, Groenewegen PP. The breadth of primary care: a systematic literature review of its core dimensions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:65. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-65 20226084.
4. Kringos D, Boerma W, Bourgueil Y, Cartier T, Dedeu T, Hasvold T, et al. The strength of primary care in Europe: an international comparative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63(616):e742–50. doi: 10.3399/bjgp13X674422 24267857.
5. Kringos DS, Boerma WG, Bourgueil Y, Cartier T, Hasvold T, Hutchinson A, et al. The European primary care monitor: structure, process and outcome indicators. BMC Fam Pract. 2010;11:81. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-11-81 20979612.
6. Thomas S. [‘European primary care’: a visionary report of the Dutch Health Council on primary health care in the European Union]. Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde. 2005;149(20):1086–8. Epub 2005/06/04. 15932132.
7. Boerma WGW, Dubois CA. Mapping primary care accross Europe. Saltman RB, Rico A, Boerma W, editors: Open University Press; 2007.
8. Kleij K-S, Tangermann U, Amelung VE, Krauth C. Patients’ preferences for primary health care–a systematic literature review of discrete choice experiments. BMC Health Services Research. 2017;17(1):476. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2433-7 28697796
9. Wensing M, Jung HP, Mainz J, Olesen F, Grol R. A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: Description of the research domain. Social Science & Medicine. 1998;47(10):1573–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00222-6.
10. Coyne I. Children’s participation in consultations and decision-making at health service level: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2008;45(11):1682–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.05.002 18706560
11. Davey A, Carter M, Campbell JL. Priorities for young adults when accessing UK primary care: literature review. Primary Health Care Research & Development. 2012;14(4):341–9. Epub 10/23. doi: 10.1017/S1463423612000497 23092551
12. Doug M, Adi Y, Williams J, Paul M, Kelly D, Petchey R, et al. Transition to adult services for children and young people with palliative care needs: a systematic review. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. 2011;1(2):167. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare.2009.163931rep 24653230
13. Marris S, Morgan S, Stark D. ‘Listening to Patients’: What is the value of age-appropriate care to teenagers and young adults with cancer? European journal of cancer care. 2011;20:145–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2010.01186.x 20477855
14. Sternberg SB, Co JPT, Homer CJ. Review of Quality Measures of the Most Integrated Health Care Settings for Children and the Need for Improved Measures: Recommendations for Initial Core Measurement Set for CHIPRA. Academic Pediatrics. 2011;11(3, Supplement):S49–S58.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2011.02.006.
15. Seliner B, Wattinger A, Spirig R. [Experiences and needs of parents of hospitalised children with disabilities and the health professionals responsible for the child’s health-care–A systematic review]. Pflege. 2015;28(5):263–76. doi: 10.1024/1012-5302/a000446 26412679.
16. Reale L, Bonati M. Mental disorders and transition to adult mental health services: A scoping review. European Psychiatry. 2015;30(8):932–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.07.011 26647869
17. Bibby H, White V, Thompson K, Anazodo A. What Are the Unmet Needs and Care Experiences of Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer? A Systematic Review. Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology. 2017;6(1):6–30. doi: 10.1089/jayao.2016.0012 27454408.
18. Blair M, Rigby M. Final Report on Current Models of Primary Care for Children. London2017. http://www.childhealthservicemodels.eu/citizenations/technical-reports/.
19. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Marley AAJ. Best-Worst Scaling: Theory, Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
20. van Til JA, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Boere-Boonekamp MM. Citizen Priorities for Care for Children; A report on citizen preferences for patient-centred and prevention oriented primary child health care models for children. 2018. http://www.childhealthservicemodels.eu/citizenations/technical-reports.
21. Levesque J-F, Harris MF, Russell G. Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12(1):18.
22. Evans DB, Hsu J, Boerma T. Universal health coverage and universal access. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2013;91(8):546–a. Epub 2013/08/14. doi: 10.2471/BLT.13.125450 23940398.
23. Haggerty J, Burge F, Levesque JF, Gass D, Pineault R, Beaulieu MD, et al. Operational definitions of attributes of primary health care: consensus among Canadian experts. Annals of family medicine. 2007;5(4):336–44. Epub 2007/08/01. doi: 10.1370/afm.682 17664500.
24. Price M, Lau FY. Provider connectedness and communication patterns: extending continuity of care in the context of the circle of care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:309. Epub 2013/08/15. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-309 23941179.
25. McDonald KM, Sundaram V, Bravata DM, Lewis R, Lin N, Kraft SA, et al. AHRQ Technical Reviews. Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies (Vol 7: Care Coordination). Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2007.
26. WHO. Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: First Global Patient Safety Challenge Clean Care Is Safer Care. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009 [cited 2018]. 2:[
27. Wijga AH, Scholtens S, van Oeffelen AAM, Beckers M. Klachten en kwalen bij kinderen in Nederland: Omvang en gevolgen geinventariseerd: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu RIVM; 2011 2011.
28. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best–worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. Journal of Health Economics. 2007;26(1):171–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.04.002 16707175
29. Zdunek K, Alma M, van Til JA, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Boere-Boonekamp MM, Alexander D. Listening to young people. London: Imperial College London 2018. http://www.childhealthservicemodels.eu/citizenations/technical-reports/.
30. Minicuci N, Corso B, Rocco I, Luzi D, Pecoraro F, Tamburis O. Innovative measures of outcome and quality of care in child primary care models. 2017. http://www.childhealthservicemodels.eu/publications/deliverables/.
31. Alma M, Mahtani V, Palant A, Klůzová-Kráčmarová L, Prinjha S. Report on Patient experiences of primary care in 5 DIPEx countries. August 2017.
32. Schloemer T, Schröder-Bäck P. Criteria for evaluating transferability of health interventions: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. Implementation Science. 2018;13(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0751-8 29941011
33. A vision for primary health care in the 21st century: towards universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2018 Contract No.: Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
Článek vyšel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 11
- Jak a kdy u celiakie začíná reakce na lepek? Možnou odpověď poodkryla čerstvá kanadská studie
- Pomůže v budoucnu s triáží na pohotovostech umělá inteligence?
- Spermie, vajíčka a mozky – „jednohubky“ z výzkumu 2024/38
- Skotská studie upřesnila zdravotní benefity aktivního cestování za prací a studiem
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- A daily diary study on maladaptive daydreaming, mind wandering, and sleep disturbances: Examining within-person and between-persons relations
- A 3’ UTR SNP rs885863, a cis-eQTL for the circadian gene VIPR2 and lincRNA 689, is associated with opioid addiction
- A substitution mutation in a conserved domain of mammalian acetate-dependent acetyl CoA synthetase 2 results in destabilized protein and impaired HIF-2 signaling
- Molecular validation of clinical Pantoea isolates identified by MALDI-TOF
Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova
Všechny kurzy