Next Article in Journal
Start-Up of a Biofilter in a Full-Scale Groundwater Treatment Plant for Iron and Manganese Removal
Next Article in Special Issue
The Economic Benefits of Reducing Racial Disparities in Health: The Case of Minnesota
Previous Article in Journal
Traditional Diet and Environmental Contaminants in Coastal Chukotka II: Legacy POPs
Previous Article in Special Issue
Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action
Article

Determinants of Overall Satisfaction with Public Clinics in Rural China: Interpersonal Care Quality and Treatment Outcome

1
Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T 1M5, Canada
2
University of Liverpool Management School, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L697ZH, UK
3
School of Management and School of Commerce, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300074, China
4
Guangdong Research Institute for International Strategies, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou 510420, China
5
TOP Education Institute, Sydney, NSW 2015, Australia
6
University of Newcastle Business School, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(5), 697; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050697
Received: 21 January 2019 / Revised: 8 February 2019 / Accepted: 22 February 2019 / Published: 27 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health Care Equity)
The primary health care quality factors determining patient satisfaction will shape patient-centered health reform in China. While rural public clinics performed better than hospitals and private clinics in terms of patient perceived quality of primary care in China, there is little information about which quality care aspects drove patients’ satisfaction. Using a World Health Organization database on 1014 rural public clinic users from eight provinces in China, our multiple linear regression model estimated the association between patient perceived quality aspects, one treatment outcome, and overall primary health care satisfaction. Our results show that treatment outcome was the strongest predictor of overall satisfaction (β = 0.338 (95% CI: 0.284 to 0.392); p < 0.001), followed by two interpersonal care quality aspects, Dignity (being treated respectfully) (β = 0.219 (95% CI: 0.117 to 0.320); p < 0.001) and Communication (clear explanation by the physician) (β = 0.103 (95% CI: 0.003 to 0.203); p = 0.043). Prompt attention (waiting time before seeing the doctor) and Confidentiality (talking privately to the provider) were not correlated with overall satisfaction. The treatment outcome focus, and weak interpersonal primary care aspects, in overall patient satisfaction, pose barriers towards a patient-centered transformation of China’s primary care rural clinics, but support the focus of improving the clinical competency of rural primary care workers. View Full-Text
Keywords: public clinics; patient satisfaction; patient centeredness; interpersonal care quality; treatment outcome; primary health care; China public clinics; patient satisfaction; patient centeredness; interpersonal care quality; treatment outcome; primary health care; China
MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, W.; Maitland, E.; Nicholas, S.; Haggerty, J. Determinants of Overall Satisfaction with Public Clinics in Rural China: Interpersonal Care Quality and Treatment Outcome. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 697. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050697

AMA Style

Wang W, Maitland E, Nicholas S, Haggerty J. Determinants of Overall Satisfaction with Public Clinics in Rural China: Interpersonal Care Quality and Treatment Outcome. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(5):697. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050697

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Wenhua, Elizabeth Maitland, Stephen Nicholas, and Jeannie Haggerty. 2019. "Determinants of Overall Satisfaction with Public Clinics in Rural China: Interpersonal Care Quality and Treatment Outcome" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 5: 697. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050697

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop