Table 2. Quality scores given, for primary care, by all of the participants in the perceived quality-of-care surveys, Shanghai and Shenzhen, China, 2011–2013.
| Attribute | Shanghai |
Shenzhen |
Difference in differences (95% CI)a | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score (SD) |
Differenceb score (95% CI) | Score (SD) |
Differenceb score (95% CI) | ||||||
| First round (n = 725) | Second round (n = 741) | First roundc (n = 640) | Second round (n = 615) | ||||||
| First contact | |||||||||
| Utilization | 2.54 (0.58) | 2.69 (0.57) | 0.121 (0.066 to 0.177) | 2.58 (0.50)** | 2.47 (0.53) | −0.117 (−0.172 to −0.063) | 0.255 (0.176 to 0.333) | ||
| Accessibility | 2.45 (0.30) | 2.53 (0.35) | 0.077 (0.044 to 0.111) | 2.57 (0.36)* | 2.68 (0.37) | 0.108 (0.067 to 0.148) | −0.030 (−0.082 to 0.022) | ||
| Continuity of care | 3.25 (0.44) | 3.37 (0.45) | 0.121 (0.076 to 0.167) | 3.20 (0.47)*** | 3.07 (0.44) | −0.117 (−0.167 to −0.068) | 0.233 (0.166 to 0.300) | ||
| Coordination | |||||||||
| Services | 2.56 (0.54) | 2.49 (0.64) | −0.080 (−0.142 to −0.018) | 2.42 (0.61)* | 2.25 (0.63) | −0.148 (−0.218 to −0.079) | 0.083 (−0.009 to 0.175) | ||
| Information | 3.64 (0.48) | 3.82 (0.40) | 0.175 (0.129 to 0.221) | 3.23 (0.69)*** | 3.16 (0.69) | −0.068 (−0.146 to 0.009) | 0.233 (0.147 to 0.320) | ||
| Comprehensiveness | |||||||||
| Service availability | 3.42 (0.40) | 3.55 (0.31) | 0.113 (0.077 to 0.150) | 3.24 (0.44) | 3.02 (0.51) | −0.208 (−0.261 to −0.155) | 0.325 (0.262 to 0.388) | ||
| Service provided | 2.43 (0.60) | 2.71 (0.59) | 0.275 (0.213 to 0.337) | 2.48 (0.67)*** | 2.30 (0.59) | −0.184 (−0.253 to −0.116) | 0.454 (0.362 to 0.546) | ||
| Patient-focused care | 2.89 (0.84) | 2.81 (0.83) | −0.091 (−0.178 to −0.004) | 3.05 (0.83) | 2.87 (0.76) | −0.186 (−0.275 to −0.097) | 0.098 (−0.027 to 0.222) | ||
| All | 23.18 (2.52) | 23.97 (2.43) | 0.712 (0.457 to 0.967) | 22.77 (2.75) | 21.81 (2.58) | −0.922 (−1.215 to −0.629) | 1.651 (1.266 to 2.037) | ||
CI: confidence interval; SD: standard deviation. * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.
a As estimated in multiple linear regression models after adjusting for potential confounders, with the Shenzhen scores used as the reference.
b The trend in the score between the first and second rounds, as seen in multiple linear regression models after adjusting for potential confounders.
c The indicated P-values came from multiple linear regression models in which, after adjusting for potential confounders, the values recorded in the first round in Shanghai were compared with those recorded in the first round in Shenzhen.