Table 3. Quality scores given, for primary care, by the participants with diagnosed chronic disease who were included 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 = 600) | Second round (n = 578) | First roundc (n = 129) | Second round (n = 108) | |||||
| First contact | ||||||||
| Utilization | 2.57 (0.58) | 2.74 (0.55) | 0.140 (0.078 to 0.202) | 2.55 (0.49)* | 2.54 (0.55) | −0.067 (−0.190 to 0.055) | 0.174 (0.026 to 0.323) | |
| Accessibility | 2.44 (0.31) | 2.51 (0.34) | 0.066 (0.029 to 0.104) | 2.54 (0.36) | 2.66 (0.38) | 0.095 (0.000 to 0.193) | −0.044 (−0.138 to 0.050) | |
| Continuity of care | 3.26 (0.44) | 3.39 (0.44) | 0.131 (0.081 to 0.182) | 3.27 (0.53)** | 3.17 (0.43) | −0.079 (−0.204 to 0.046) | 0.204 (0.080 to 0.329) | |
| Coordination | ||||||||
| Services | 2.56 (0.54) | 2.47 (0.64) | −0.111 (−0.180 to −0.042) | 2.46 (0.60) | 2.33 (0.62) | −0.122 (−0.290 to 0.046) | −0.001 (−0.170 to 0.170) | |
| Information | 3.63 (0.48) | 3.83 (0.38) | 0.184 (0.133 to 0.235) | 3.26 (0.70)*** | 3.16 (0.71) | −0.131 (−0.324 to 0.061) | 0.275 (0.136 to 0.413) | |
| Comprehensiveness | ||||||||
| Service availability | 3.42 (0.40) | 3.54 (0.30) | 0.103 (0.062 to 0.143) | 3.28 (0.44) | 3.12 (0.48) | −0.125 (−0.247 to −0.002) | 0.216 (0.111 to 0.320) | |
| Service provided | 2.45 (0.60) | 2.71 (0.58) | 0.257 (0.188 to 0.326) | 2.68 (0.63)*** | 2.57 (0.56) | −0.123 (−0.277 to 0.031) | 0.347 (0.181 to 0.513) | |
| Patient-focused care | 2.86 (0.85) | 2.78 (0.84) | 0.014 (−0.044 to 0.071) | 3.04 (0.86) | 2.98 (0.83) | 0.018 (−0.112 to 0.149) | −0.083 (−0.324 to 0.158) | |
| All | 23.18 (2.57) | 23.96 (2.38) | 0.672 (0.386 to 0.957) | 23.10 (2.89) | 22.54 (2.74) | −0.630 (−1.371 to 0.111) | 1.089 (0.378 to 1.799) | |
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.