4.3 Article

The Quality of Tuberculosis Care in Urban Migrant Clinics in China

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15092037

关键词

standardized patients; quality of tuberculosis care; rural-to-urban migrants; migrant clinics

资金

  1. 111 Project [B16031]
  2. Laboratory of Modern Teaching Technology of the Ministry of Education, Shaanxi Normal University
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71703083, 71703084, 71473152]
  4. National Social Science Fund Youth Project [15CJL005]
  5. China Medical Board [CMB-16-257]
  6. Knowledge for Change program at The World Bank [7172469]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Large and increasing numbers of rural-to-urban migrants provided new challenges for tuberculosis control in large cities in China and increased the need for high quality tuberculosis care delivered by clinics in urban migrant communities. Based on a household survey in migrant communities, we selected and separated clinics into those that mainly serve migrants and those that mainly serve local residents. Using standardized patients, this study provided an objective comparison of the quality of tuberculosis care delivered by both types of clinics and examined factors related to quality care. Only 27% (95% confidence interval (CI) 14-46) of cases were correctly managed in migrant clinics, which is significantly worse than it in local clinics (50%, 95% CI 28-72). Clinicians with a base salary were 41 percentage points more likely to demonstrate better case management. Furthermore, clinicians with upper secondary or higher education level charged 20 RMB lower out of pocket fees than less-educated clinicians. In conclusion, the quality of tuberculosis care accessed by migrants was very poor and policies to improve the quality should be prioritized in current health reforms. Providing a base salary was a possible way to improve quality of care and increasing the education attainment of urban community clinicians might reduce the heavy barrier of medical expenses for migrants

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据