Skip to main content
PMC home page
Bulletin of the World Health Organization logoLink to Bulletin of the World Health Organization
. 2020 Aug 27;98(11):735–746D. doi: 10.2471/BLT.19.245563

Hospital-provision of essential primary care in 56 countries: determinants and quality

Fourniture des soins de santé primaires essentiels en milieu hospitalier dans 56 pays : déterminants et qualité

Prestación de atención primaria básica en los hospitales de 56 países: factores determinantes y calidad

تقديم المستشفيات للرعاية الأولية الأساسية في 56 بلدًا: المحددات والجودة

56 个国家的医院提供基本初级保健的情况：决定因素和质量

Оказание больницами основных услуг первичной медико-санитарной помощи в 56 странах: детерминанты и качество

Catherine Arsenault a,✉, Min Kyung Kim a, Amit Aryal b, Adama Faye c, Jean Paul Joseph d, Munir Kassa e, Tizta Tilahun Degfie f, Talhiya Yahya g, Margaret E Kruk a
PMCID: PMC7607473  PMID: 33177770

Abstract

Objective

To estimate the use of hospitals for four essential primary care services offered in health centres in low- and middle-income countries and to explore differences in quality between hospitals and health centres.

Methods

We extracted data from all demographic and health surveys conducted since 2010 on the type of facilities used for obtaining contraceptives, routine antenatal care and care for minor childhood diarrhoea and cough or fever. Using mixed-effects logistic regression models we assessed associations between hospital use and individual and country-level covariates. We assessed competence of care based on the receipt of essential clinical actions during visits. We also analysed three indicators of user experience from countries with available service provision assessment survey data.

Findings

On average across 56 countries, public hospitals were used as the sole source of care by 16.9% of 126 012 women who obtained contraceptives, 23.1% of 418 236 women who received routine antenatal care, 19.9% of 47 677 children with diarrhoea and 18.5% of 82 082 children with fever or cough. Hospital use was more common in richer countries with higher expenditures on health per capita and among urban residents and wealthier, better-educated women. Antenatal care quality was higher in hospitals in 44 countries. In a subset of eight countries, people using hospitals tended to spend more, report more problems and be somewhat less satisfied with the care received.

Conclusion

As countries work towards achieving ambitious health goals, they will need to assess care quality and user preferences to deliver effective primary care services that people want to use.

Introduction

Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) will require affordable, high-quality primary care that is accessible to all people, at every age.1 Primary care is recognized as an essential platform for addressing the growing burden of chronic diseases and for detecting and managing infectious disease outbreaks in places that are most vulnerable to them.2–5 The 2008 World Health Report on primary health care emphasized that provision of high-quality primary care requires relocating the entry point to the health system from hospital outpatient departments to primary care centres.6 The more recent World Health Organization (WHO) global strategy on people-centred and integrated health services also calls for rebalancing health services towards primary care, and reducing the emphasis on the hospital sector.7 Primary care requires a relationship of trust between people and their providers.6 Settings such as busy hospital outpatient departments are not organized to build such relationships and produce people-centred care.6 In contrast, government health centres have usually been designed to work in close relationship with the community they serve, and can create the conditions for more comprehensive, person-centred continuing care.

Nonetheless, reports of people opting to use hospitals instead of health centres are common in low- and middle-income countries.8–10 Several factors may lead people to choose hospitals: negative perceptions about health centres (perceived poor quality or lack of trust), the convenience of hospitals, and the health policies in place.11–13 However, seeking care in hospitals may lead to excessive health-care spending and reduced equity and patient-centeredness and be a missed opportunity to promote relationships with primary care providers over time.8

Monitoring the proportion of people who use hospitals for essential health services and understanding the factors driving hospital use is important for strengthening primary care systems. In this analysis, we estimated the proportion of people who visited hospitals for four essential health services offered at health centres in low- and middle-income countries and explored the factors associated with hospital use. We also described differences in the quality of these services between hospitals and health centres.

Methods

Data sources

We used data from all demographic and health surveys conducted in low- and middle-income countries since 2010 and included the most recent survey available in each country (as of 20 January 2020). The demographic and health surveys are nationally representative household surveys that collect data on population health indicators with a strong focus on maternal and child health. Sampling strategies and methods have been described previously.14 We obtained data on country characteristics and purchasing power exchange rates from the World Bank’s world development indicators database15 and worldwide governance indicators project.16

We also included data from service provision assessment surveys. These surveys use nationally representative samples or censuses or near censuses of the country’s health facilities to provide a comprehensive overview of health service delivery in a country.17 We included the most recent surveys conducted in the same timeframe as the corresponding demographic and health survey (2010–2018) that included exit interviews with people attending family planning, antenatal care and sick-child care services.

Essential health services

We described the type of health facility used for four non-urgent health services typically provided in primary care settings: (i) contraceptives, (ii) routine antenatal care, (iii) care for children younger than 5 years with non-severe diarrhoea; and (iv) care for children younger than 5 years with fever or a cough. These essential health services should be addressed in primary care settings and are four of the 16 tracer indicators selected to monitor progress towards UHC.18 In the demographic and health survey, women were asked to report the type of facility visited for each of the services. Those who used the public sector reported the level of the facility: whether it was a hospital or a lower-level facility dedicated to primary care such as a health centre or a clinic. For those who used the private sector, the demographic and health survey did not differentiate between hospitals and lower-level facilities. We therefore created three categories of facilities visited: (i) public hospitals (including district, regional, national and military hospitals); (ii) public health centres (including all non-hospital facilities); and (iii) any private health-care facilities. We excluded care received from homes, pharmacies, shops, drug sellers, traditional practitioners or a friend or relative.

To identify the usual or sole source of care and to exclude those people who may have been referred from a primary care facility to the hospital, we excluded anyone who reported using multiple types of facility for the same service. To restrict the sample to those with non-urgent and less severe conditions, we excluded women who were pregnant with twins or had previously had a perinatal death, as these women may be at greater risk of complicated pregnancies and may require more advanced antenatal care.19 For childhood diarrhoea, we excluded children who had blood in their stools. Among children with a fever or cough, we excluded those with suspected pneumonia as defined by the survey (a cough accompanied by short rapid breaths and difficulty breathing that is related to a problem in the chest). For contraceptives, we excluded women who used intrauterine devices, sterilization or implants as these more advanced methods may only be provided in hospitals.

To explore why people might visit public hospitals for services that are offered in primary care settings, we included a series of individual-level covariates available from the survey. These included urban residence, age group (15–19, 20–30, 31–40 or 41–65 years), secondary education, wealth quintiles and exposure to the media. We also explored associations with a series of country-level factors hypothesized to influence hospital use. These included year of the demographic and health survey (pre- or post-2015), the world region, country’s surface area, country’s total expenditure on health per capita, share of total health expenditure paid by patients out-of-pocket and an indicator of government effectiveness.15,16 We used country covariates for the year before the demographic and health survey. In cases where that year’s estimate was unavailable, we used the estimate for the closest year.

Quality of care

To evaluate quality of care, we explored differences in provision of competent care and the user experience12 between public hospitals and health centres for the services included in this study.

We assessed competence of care in the demographic and health survey based on the receipt of essential clinical actions during visits. For antenatal care, we measured receipt of three items during consultations: blood pressure monitoring and urine and blood testing. For child diarrhoea, we assessed whether oral rehydration solutions were provided. For contraceptives, we measured whether women reported being counselled about potential side-effects when first prescribed the method, and being told about alternative contraception methods by the health provider. We were unable to identify any quality of care indicator for childhood fever or cough in the survey. These indicators offer only a limited view of the quality of these services. However, they are recommended as essential components of care according to WHO guidance20–22 and have been used by others to describe quality.12,23

We also analysed three indicators of user experience from a subset of eight countries with available data from service provision assessment surveys: cost of visit, number of problems experienced, and satisfaction. These indicators were measured during client exit interviews among those who sought family planning, antenatal care and sick child care services in public hospitals and in health centres.

Statistical analysis

First, we summarized the proportion of women seeking each of the four services in public hospitals, public health centres and in private facilities by country using individual-level sampling weights. We pooled the estimates across countries by weighting each country equally.

Second, to explore associations between individual and country-level factors and public hospital use for these services we used generalized linear mixed-effects models based on a logit-link function with a random intercept for the country. We repeated the models for each of the four health services. Because private sector users may differ from those seeking care in the public sector, the regression analyses were limited to those people who used public facilities.

Finally, we compared quality of care in public hospitals and health centres using data from the demographic and health surveys and the service provision assessment surveys by estimating means for each indicator using individual-level (or client-level) sampling weights and weighting countries equally.

We performed descriptive analyses using Stata version 16 (Stata Corp., College Station, United States of America) and fitted the mixed-effects models using R version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

A total of 58 countries conducted a demographic and health survey since 2010. However, Colombia and Turkey did not include data on care-seeking for sick children and were excluded. We, therefore, included 56 countries with surveys conducted from 2010 to 2018, the majority (31, 55.4%) conducted from 2015 to 2018.

Essential health services

Data were available for 126 012 women who obtained contraceptives, 418 236 women who received antenatal care, 47 677 children younger than 5 years with diarrhoea and 82 082 children younger than 5 years with fever or cough. On average across the 56 countries, the proportions of women who sought care in public hospitals were 16.9% for contraceptives, 23.1% for antenatal care, 19.9% for childhood diarrhoea and 18.5% for childhood fever or cough (pooled averages weigh countries equally; country-specific averages use individual-level sampling weights; Table 1; available at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/98/11/19-245563). Public health centres were used for these services by 64.7%, 58.9%, 56.4% and 55.3% of women, respectively. The remaining women relied on the private sector.

Table 1. Type of facility used for services offered in primary care settings in 56 low- and middle-income countries.

Country (year of survey) Income groupa No. (%) of respondents using service
Contraceptives
 Antenatal care
 Childhood diarrhoea
 Childhood fever or cough
Total Public hospitals Public health centres Private sector Total Public hospitals Public health centres Private sector Total Public hospitals Public health centres Private sector Total Public hospitals Public health centres Private sector
Afghanistan (2015) Low 2 451 28.5 47.8 23.7 9 619 37.6 30.4 32.1 3 516 29.1 38.1 32.7 2 599 28.7 38.0 33.3
Albania (2017–2018) Upper middle 40 13.6 80.0 6.4 1 704 58.6 24.3 17.1 94 39.3 52.7 7.9 122 30.6 66.2 3.2
Angola (2015) Upper middle 746 35.2 57.4 7.4 6 576 31.4 60.6 8.1 863 31.3 56.8 11.9 872 30.9 59.8 9.4
Armenia (2016) Lower middle 29 26.3 50.2 23.5 1 292 27.5 65.3 7.2 26 33.6 61.8 4.7 92 18.1 79.1 2.8
Bangladesh (2014) Low 7 622 1.5 42.6 56.0 2 780 10.4 26.9 62.8 105 7.3 26.9 65.8 854 9.3 22.3 68.4
Benin (2017–2018) Low 420 16.4 64.7 18.9 7 536 19.9 79.1 0.9 307 10.1 73.5 16.3 1 027 8.0 41.4 50.6
Burkina Faso (2010) Low 1 326 14.3 81.5 4.2 9 406 6.4 92.3 1.4 838 17.4 79.6 3.1 1 609 16.7 79.6 3.6
Burundi (2017) Low 1 494 9.1 85.9 5.0 7 929 8.5 77.1 14.4 1 504 5.4 81.8 12.8 2 903 4.8 81.3 13.9
Cambodia (2014) Low 2 348 1.0 62.8 36.2 5 032 7.8 86.7 5.5 401 3.5 31.4 65.1 1 017 6.9 27.7 65.4
Cameroon (2011) Lower middle 530 43.0 31.8 25.2 6 000 27.4 42.6 30.0 387 25.8 50.3 23.9 955 24.7 44.9 30.4
Chad (2014–2015) Low 362 33.2 48.2 18.6 6 334 20.0 77.1 2.9 743 13.0 55.4 31.6 726 13.3 54.2 32.4
Comoros (2012) Low 362 22.5 75.1 2.5 1 632 29.9 61.5 8.6 158 21.5 72.9 5.7 322 27.9 62.3 9.8
Congo (2012) Lower middle 502 55.0 27.5 17.5 5 139 46.5 41.2 12.4 436 59.0 23.6 17.4 890 49.4 37.0 13.7
Côte d’Ivoire (2011–2012) Lower middle 365 29.6 59.6 10.8 4 369 29.4 63.2 7.3 249 27.4 60.8 11.8 536 25.1 60.9 14.0
Democratic Republic of the Congo (2014) Low 1 051 11.6 13.1 75.4 9 219 17.6 64.9 17.5 836 8.3 65.7 26.0 1 988 6.1 63.5 30.4
Dominican Republic (2013) Upper middle 834 48.2 34.5 17.3 659 89.2 1.4 9.5 143 69.2 22.7 8.2 187 79.8 16.0 4.2
Egypt (2014) Lower middle 2 690 7.3 88.7 4.0 12 701 2.1 9.8 88.2 1 090 9.5 14.3 76.2 1 940 8.9 13.4 77.7
Ethiopia (2016) Low 2 583 2.3 81.1 16.5 4 326 6.1 88.2 5.8 534 4.8 71.3 23.9 371 5.2 63.9 30.9
Gabon (2012) Upper middle 318 50.7 31.3 18.0 3 214 41.8 35.5 22.7 263 54.8 34.1 11.2 726 48.4 37.8 13.8
Gambia (2013) Low 394 12.8 65.3 21.9 4 906 16.9 75.0 8.0 780 16.5 76.9 6.6 541 14.4 75.7 9.9
Ghana (2014) Lower middle 628 29.7 61.4 8.9 3 675 48.4 40.5 11.1 233 29.3 54.8 15.9 466 32.7 50.0 17.4
Guatemala (2014–2015) Lower middle 2 570 4.4 82.1 13.6 7 363 8.3 64.9 26.8 960 6.6 49.9 43.5 1 461 6.0 55.7 38.3
Guinea (2018) Low 364 12.7 74.6 12.7 4 259 11.6 82.6 5.9 417 6.8 79.8 13.3 553 11.7 77.7 10.7
Haiti (2017) Low 2 032 20.7 45.7 33.6 4 002 36.9 57.6 5.6 408 20.1 56.8 23.1 793 16.1 61.4 22.5
Honduras (2012) Lower middle 3 001 4.4 79.0 16.6 7 399 14.3 68.8 17.0 824 16.5 63.2 20.2 1 523 12.5 64.4 23.1
India (2016) Lower middle 19 799 13.5 24.7 61.8 108 798 33.2 27.8 39.0 12 908 14.4 8.3 77.4 23 211 16.1 9.1 74.8
Indonesia (2017) Lower middle 11 926 0.2 34.1 65.7 10 525 2.6 33.1 64.3 1 238 2.4 42.2 55.4 3 128 1.7 38.1 60.2
Jordan (2017–2018) Lower middle 1 129 4.7 73.5 21.9 5 937 19.0 12.3 68.7 404 21.3 29.5 49.2 468 13.8 39.3 46.9
Kenya (2014) Low 6 652 18.1 50.3 31.6 6 206 31.8 52.0 16.3 1 362 17.7 63.4 18.9 3 355 17.7 60.3 22.1
Kyrgyzstan (2012) Low 139 8.4 73.7 17.9 2 581 13.5 84.6 1.9 98 24.2 72.5 3.3 107 26.3 70.8 3.0
Lesotho (2014) Lower middle 2 233 16.8 57.5 25.7 2 211 19.1 56.0 24.9 144 17.9 55.4 26.7 383 16.0 50.5 33.5
Liberia (2013) Low 1 354 33.7 41.7 24.6 4 139 38.6 42.5 18.8 469 18.1 54.9 27.0 977 19.5 51.5 29.0
Malawi (2016) Low 6 348 12.6 73.6 13.9 12 506 19.2 67.5 13.3 2 137 13.3 76.1 10.7 2 666 12.1 74.5 13.4
Maldives (2016–2017) Upper middle 215 29.0 56.8 14.1 1 693 58.4 7.0 34.6 95 39.8 44.9 15.4 522 24.9 44.7 30.4
Mali (2018) Low 592 2.0 78.0 20.0 4 863 2.3 91.5 6.2 407 1.8 80.8 17.4 427 0.7 81.5 17.8
Mozambique (2011) Low 1 121 17.4 79.2 3.4 6 564 20.0 79.2 0.8 596 93.4 0.7 5.8 987 93.4 1.0 5.6
Myanmar (2015–2016) Lower middle 2 204 10.7 68.3 21.1 2 304 28.3 59.0 12.7 207 24.4 47.1 28.5 437 18.8 47.9 33.4
Namibia (2013) Upper middle 3 429 23.2 67.9 8.9 3 431 33.1 58.4 8.5 410 27.5 66.7 5.8 682 24.3 62.1 13.6
Nepal (2016) Low 1 364 6.0 72.4 21.6 2 775 28.6 51.7 19.7 131 11.2 32.6 56.2 477 12.4 26.2 61.4
Nigeria (2018) Lower middle 1 112 30.6 55.9 13.6 14 824 31.5 50.0 18.5 1 050 23.5 66.3 10.2 2 135 22.2 65.4 12.4
Pakistan (2017–2018) Lower middle 580 19.0 61.3 19.7 5 160 23.8 2.6 73.7 1 143 14.0 2.9 83.1 1 870 12.8 3.6 83.6
Papua New Guinea (2016–2018) Lower middle 1 228 19.5 74.6 6.0 4 902 24.9 70.2 4.9 476 18.8 75.0 6.2 695 16.2 78.8 5.0
Peru (2012) Upper middle 3 665 12.2 85.2 2.7 5 924 20.3 71.0 8.8 299 20.9 62.7 16.4 1 392 16.7 58.8 24.5
Philippines (2017) Lower middle 1 957 1.4 94.7 4.0 6 685 10.5 64.5 25.0 254 11.7 52.8 35.5 733 10.9 55.2 33.9
Rwanda (2014–2015) Low 2 668 0.6 96.6 2.8 5 732 2.7 96.1 1.2 318 1.4 93.4 5.2 829 1.8 89.6 8.6
Senegal (2017) Low 1 614 3.8 89.6 6.6 7 194 5.4 86.7 7.9 719 2.6 92.0 5.4 807 4.3 88.0 7.7
Sierra Leone (2013) Low 2 058 15.0 69.7 15.2 7 365 17.4 79.6 2.9 564 16.4 77.9 5.7 1 615 12.9 82.9 4.2
South Africa (2016) Upper middle 2 847 8.4 86.6 5.0 2 696 11.2 78.6 10.2 188 8.5 75.2 16.3 312 4.3 73.6 22.0
Tajikistan (2017) Lower middle 337 9.9 90.1 0.1 3 761 6.6 92.7 0.7 404 16.3 80.3 3.5 245 17.3 76.6 6.1
Timor-Leste (2016) Lower middle 1 084 11.5 83.7 4.8 3 990 15.2 82.2 2.6 474 13.1 79.1 7.9 481 15.1 77.7 7.2
Togo (2014) Low 563 18.1 66.2 15.7 4 228 20.5 67.0 12.5 219 17.0 66.9 16.1 601 17.5 60.0 22.5
Uganda (2016) Low 3 060 8.6 47.4 43.9 9 152 19.8 68.6 11.5 1 637 5.5 42.3 52.3 2 860 5.1 45.1 49.8
United Republic of Tanzania (2016) Low 1 450 8.8 74.9 16.3 6 429 9.8 77.0 13.3 474 8.9 69.0 22.1 716 7.7 64.7 27.6
Yemen (2013) Lower middle 1 765 28.5 52.4 19.2 5 638 31.9 19.3 48.9 1 246 25.4 30.7 43.9 1 161 24.6 29.8 45.6
Zambia (2013–2014) Lower middle 3 481 7.0 88.1 4.9 8 667 10.9 84.5 4.7 1 087 8.7 86.2 5.1 2 317 7.6 86.8 5.6
Zimbabwe (2015) Low 2 980 11.9 79.8 8.3 4 283 26.3 66.4 7.3 404 9.1 76.6 14.4 418 7.5 69.6 22.9
All countries NA 126 012 16.9 64.7 18.5 418 236 23.1 58.9 18.1 47 677 19.9 56.4 23.7 82 082 18.5 55.3 26.1
Open in a new tab

NA: not applicable.

a World Bank classification.15

Notes: Data shown include individual-level sampling weights. Public clinics include any non-hospital public facility type such as: primary or community health centres, welfare centres, health posts, public clinics, mobile clinics, government dispensaries, family welfare centres or public family doctor’s office.

Women in Cambodia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Mali, Rwanda and Senegal had the lowest hospital use (less than 5% of women on average across the four services) while Albania, Congo, Dominican Republic, Gabon, Maldives and Mozambique had the highest use (more than 35% of women on average across the four services (Fig. 1 and data repository).24

Fig. 1.

Use of public hospitals for four essential primary care services in 56 low- and middle-income countries

Notes: Average across four health services: contraceptives, antenatal care and care for child diarrhoea and child fever or cough.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

We found that the proportions of women using public hospitals for these four services tended to increase by country income group (Fig. 2). For example, an average of 43.0% of pregnant women used hospitals for routine antenatal care in upper-middle-income countries compared with 18.0% on average in low-income countries.

Fig. 2.

Use of public hospitals for four essential primary care services by country income group in 56 low- and middle-income countries

Notes: Boxes represent 25th percentile, median and 75th percentile. Mean is identified by x markers. Lines show upper and lower adjacent values, while dots are maximum outside values, as defined by Tukey et al., 1977.25

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

In all four regression models, we found that those visiting hospitals had a higher likelihood of living in urban areas, of being wealthier and of having a secondary education (Table 2). For example, mothers seeking medical advice or treatment for childhood diarrhoea in a hospital were twice as likely to belong to the wealthiest quintile than the poorest quintile (odds ratio, OR: 2.01; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.77 to 2.29). We also found that women receiving antenatal care in hospitals were more likely to belong to an older age group and be regularly exposed to the media.

Table 2. Results of mixed-effects regression models for the associations between individual and country-level factors and public hospital use for four primary care services in 56 low- and middle-income countries.

Variable Contraceptives
 Antenatal care
 Care for childhood diarrhoea
 Care for childhood fever or cough
No. of respondents No. (%) using hospitals OR (95% CI) No. of respondents No. (%) using hospitals OR (95% CI) No. of respondents No. (%) using hospitals OR (95% CI) No. of respondents No. (%) using hospitals OR (95% CI)
Individual characteristics
Area
   Urban 31 106 8 857 (28.5) 2.45 (2.34 to 2.56) 100 715 44 319 (44.0) 1.96 (1.92 to 2.00) 8 549 3 938 (46.1) 3.15 (2.91 to 3.40) 14 750 6 574 (44.6) 3.04 (2.87 to 3.23)
   Rural 59 174 7 207 (12.2) Ref. 226 892 60 146 (26.5) Ref. 21 364 4 902 (23.0) Ref. 35 791 7 923 (22.1) Ref.
Wealth quintiles
   Q1 poorest 19 218 1 876 (9.8) Ref. 78 375 17 656 (22.5) Ref. 7 846 1 647 (21.0) Ref. 12 817 2 521 (19.7) Ref.
   Q2 19 937 2 462 (12.4) 1.11 (1.03 to 1.19) 75 056 20 984 (28.0) 1.28 (1.25 to 1.32) 6 998 1 754 (25.1) 1.14 (1.04 to 1.25) 12 018 2 925 (24.3) 1.16 (1.08 to 1.24)
   Q3 19 221 3 191 (16.6) 1.34 (1.25 to 1.43) 68 657 22 249 (32.4) 1.52 (1.48 to 1.56) 6 265 1 872 (29.9) 1.34 (1.22 to 1.48) 10 595 3 045 (28.7) 1.29 (1.19 to 1.39)
   Q4 17 631 4 045 (22.9) 1.59 (1.48 to 1.71) 60 216 22 876 (38.0) 1.84 (1.79 to 1.90) 5 284 1 894 (35.8) 1.53 (1.38 to 1.70) 8 999 3 243 (36.0) 1.52 (1.40 to 1.65)
   Q5 richest 14 273 4 490 (31.5) 1.84 (1.70 to 1.99) 45 303 20 700 (45.7) 2.45 (2.36 to 2.54) 3 520 1 673 (47.5) 2.01 (1.77 to 2.29) 6 112 2 763 (45.2) 1.97 (1.78 to 2.17)
Woman's age,  years
   15–19 5 453 1 001 (18.4) Ref. 20 833 5 621 (27.0) Ref. 2 115 563 (26.6) Ref. 3 251 871 (26.8) Ref.
   20–30 42 139 7 724 (18.3) 0.95 (0.87 to 1.03) 195 174 65 995 (33.8) 1.02 (0.99 to 1.06) 18 805 5 924 (31.5) 1.06 (0.94 to 1.20) 30 233 9 297 (30.8) 1.02 (0.92 to 1.13)
   31–40 31 698 5 483 (17.3) 0.96 (0.88 to 1.04) 93 228 28 195 (30.2) 1.06 (1.02 to 1.10) 7 670 2 031 (26.5) 1.00 (0.88 to 1.15) 14 487 3 776 (26.1) 1.01 (0.91 to 1.12)
   41–65 10 990 1 856 (16.9) 1.06 (0.96 to 1.16) 18 372 4 654 (25.3) 1.10 (1.04 to 1.16) 1 323 322 (24.3) 1.01 (0.84 to 1.22) 2 570 553 (21.5) 0.98 (0.85 to 1.13)
Any secondary education
   Yes 39 963 8 482 (21.2) 1.13 (1.08 to 1.18) 130 398 54 824 (42.0) 1.25 (1.22 to 1.27) 9 541 3 688 (38.7) 1.16 (1.07 to 1.25) 18 512 7 010 (37.9) 1.20 (1.14 to 1.27)
   No 50 317 7 582 (15.1) Ref. 197 209 49 641 (25.2) Ref. 20 372 5 152 (25.3) Ref. 32 029 7 487 (23.4) Ref.
Media exposurea
   Yes 60 070 11 562 (19.2) 1.00 (0.95 to 1.05) 190 526 70 264 (36.9) 1.11 (1.09 to 1.13) 16 904 5 728 (33.9) 1.01 (0.95 to 1.09) 29 854 9 797 (32.8) 1.00 (0.95 to 1.06)
   No 30 210 4 502 (14.9) Ref. 137 081 34 201 (24.9) Ref. 13 009 3 112 (23.9) Ref. 20 687 4 700 (22.7) Ref.
Country characteristics
Surveyed post-2015
   Yes 51 548 8 664 (16.8) 0.65 (0.38 to 1.09) 219 075 75 892 (34.6) 0.67 (0.35 to 1.27) 19 198 5 725 (29.8) 0.40 (0.20 to 0.79) 28 940 8 578 (29.6) 0.34 (0.17 to 0.66)
   No 38 732 7 400 (19.1) Ref. 108 532 28 573 (26.3) Ref. 10 715 3 115 (29.1) Ref. 21 601 5 919 (27.4) Ref.
Land area,  millions km2 90 280 NA 1.03 (0.66 to 1.59) 327 607 NA 0.74 (0.43 to 1.28) 29 913 NA 1.14 (0.64 to 2.03) 50 541 NA 1.05 (0.59 to 1.86)
Government effectiveness indexb 90 280 NA 0.36 (0.18 to 0.70) 327 607 NA 0.71 (0.30 to 1.67) 29 913 NA 0.82 (0.34 to 2.02) 50 541 NA 0.83 (0.33 to 2.05)
Total health expenditure per capita, hundreds int. $c 90 280 NA 1.17 (1.02 to 1.34) 327 607 NA 1.31 (1.11 to 1.55) 29 913 NA 1.10 (0.92 to 1.32) 50 541 NA 1.06 (0.89 to 1.26)
Share of out-of-pocket expenditure on health, % 90 280 NA 0.95 (0.81 to 1.11) 327 607 NA 1.05 (0.86 to 1.27) 29 913 NA 0.97 (0.79 to 1.19) 50 541 NA 0.99 (0.81 to 1.21)
Regiond
   East African 26 020 4 218 (16.2) Ref. 65 321 13 287 (20.3) Ref. 8 340 1 708 (20.5) Ref. 14 251 2 924 (20.5) Ref.
   Eastern Mediterranean 7 338 1 751 (23.9) 1.64 (0.55 to 4.89) 14 658 8 537 (58.2) 3.48 (0.90 to 13.55) 3 566 1 750 (49.1) 4.51 (1.09 to 18.69) 3 112 1 508 (48.5) 3.59 (0.87 to 14.84)
   European 529 59 (11.2) 1.06 (0.28 to 3.93) 8 899 2 246 (25.2) 0.41 (0.08 to 2.05) 587 144 (24.5) 1.44 (0.27 to 7.83) 534 139 (26.0) 1.05 (0.20 to 5.64)
   Middle African 1 988 1 098 (55.2) 4.63 (1.69 to 12.69) 31 789 11 549 (36.3) 2.10 (0.60 to 7.42) 2 826 1 025 (36.3) 1.45 (0.39 to 5.45) 5 048 1 744 (34.6) 1.18 (0.32 to 4.38)
   Americas 11 596 1 642 (14.2) 0.82 (0.29 to 2.34) 22 349 4 832 (21.6) 1.15 (0.30 to 4.39) 2 041 394 (19.3) 0.99 (0.24 to 4.03) 4 298 736 (17.1) 0.89 (0.22 to 3.59)
   Southern African 7 845 1 498 (19.1) 0.98 (0.23 to 4.21) 7 430 1 742 (23.5) 0.25 (0.04 to 1.43) 655 151 (23.0) 0.42 (0.07 to 2.63) 1 089 242 (22.2) 0.35 (0.06 to 2.11)
   South East Asia 20 520 3 508 (17.1) 0.80 (0.30 to 2.12) 91 325 45 083 (49.4) 1.45 (0.43 to 4.88) 5 005 2 476 (49.5) 1.50 (0.42 to 5.44) 10 290 4 959 (48.2) 1.49 (0.41 to 5.39)
   Western African 9 423 1 900 (20.2) 1.27 (0.57 to 2.84) 70 854 14 739 (20.8) 0.67 (0.25 to 1.81) 6 014 964 (16.0) 0.56 (0.20 to 1.60) 10 254 1 891 (18.4) 0.53 (0.19 to 1.49)
   Western Pacific 5 021 390 (7.8) 0.56 (0.18 to 1.77) 14 982 2 450 (16.4) 0.53 (0.12 to 2.34) 879 228 (25.9) 1.03 (0.22 to 4.90) 1 665 354 (21.3) 1.06 (0.23 to 4.96)
Analysis
Intercept NA NA 0.04 (0.02 to 0.10) NA NA 0.07 (0.02 to 0.23) NA NA 0.16 (0.05 to 0.51) NA NA 0.19 (0.06 to 0.64)
Variance estimate, null model NA NA 1.53 (−0.90  to 3.95) NA NA 1.81 (−0.83 to 4.45) NA NA 1.71 (−0.85 to 4.28) NA NA 1.64 (−0.87  to 4.14)
Variance estimate, full model NA NA 0.80 (−0.95 to 2.55) NA NA 1.27 (−0.94 to 3.47) NA NA 1.38 (−0.92 to 3.68) NA NA 1.35 (−0.93 to 3.62)
Open in a new tab

CI: confidence interval; Int. $: international dollar; NA: not applicable; OR: odds ratio; Ref.: reference category.

a Women were categorized as being exposed to the media if they reported doing at least one of the following every week: reading newspapers or magazines, listening to the radio or watching television.

b Government effectiveness index is estimated by the World Bank’s worldwide governance indicators project16 and is expressed in units of a standard normal distribution with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one with higher values corresponding to better effectiveness.

c Total health expenditures per capita were obtained from the World Bank’s world development indicators database15 and are expressed in hundreds of international $.

d World regions were based on World Health Organization classifications and the African Region was divided into four sub-regions based on the United Nations Statistics Division classification.26

Notes: For each health service, we first calculated a null model with no covariates and only a country-specific random effect to model between-country variation in public hospital use.

Among country characteristics, we found that women visiting hospitals to obtain contraceptives and receive antenatal care had a higher likelihood of living in countries with higher health expenditures per capita (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.34 and OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.55, respectively). Women visiting hospitals to obtain contraceptives were much less likely to live in countries with effective governments (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.70). Women choosing hospitals for treatment of child diarrhoea and fever or cough were less likely to live in countries surveyed post-2015, indicating a potential reduction in hospital use over time.

Quality of care

We found that, on average, women who received antenatal care in hospitals were much more likely to report having their blood pressure monitored and urine and blood samples taken compared with women who received antenatal care in health centres (Fig. 3). The differences were statistically significant in 44 of the 56 countries (P < 0.05; data repository).24 Only two countries (Albania and Tajikistan) had higher antenatal care quality in health centres. There were small differences in quality for the other two services, whereby women using hospitals were slightly more likely to report appropriate counselling when obtaining contraceptives or being provided with oral rehydration solutions for their child’s diarrhoea (statistically significant differences in 11 countries each; data repository).24

Fig. 3.

Differences in quality of family planning, antenatal care and sick child care between public hospitals and health centres in 56 low- and middle-income countries

Notes: Boxes represent 25th percentile, median and 75th percentile. Mean is identified by x markers. Lines show upper and lower adjacent values, while dots are maximum outside values as defined by Tukey et al., 1977.25

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Data were available from service provision assessment surveys in eight low-income countries (Table 3). We found that those receiving care in hospitals spent more than those who visited health centres – an average of international dollars 1.09 more per visit. Costs were significantly higher in hospitals in seven of the eight countries (data repository).24 Although the number of problems reported was low overall, people using hospitals tended to report more problems on average than users of health centres. Differences were statistically significant in five countries. For example, hospital users were more likely to report experiencing problems with the amount of explanation received from their provider and with their ability to discuss concerns. In addition, in health centres, 81.3% of people reported being very satisfied with the services received, compared with 74.7% in hospitals. Differences in satisfaction were statistically significant in six countries (data repository).24

Table 3. Costs and experiences of care between users of public hospitals and health centres in eight low-income countries.

Facility used No. of respondents Mean (SD)
Total paid for services, int. $a Average no. of problems reportedb Very satisfied with services, %c
Public hospitals 11 224 2.24 (1.98) 1.5 (0.5) 74.7 (17.7)
Public health centres 21 564 1.15 (1.16) 1.2 (0.4) 81.3 (16.2)
Open in a new tab

Int. $: international dollar; SD: standard deviation.

a The total paid for services are in international dollars converted using the purchasing power parity conversion rate for the year of the survey.

b Average number of problems reported among the following 11 common problems: wait time, ability to discuss concerns with health worker, amount of explanation provided, visual privacy, auditory privacy, medication availability, hours services are provided, days services are provided, cleanliness of facility, staff treatment and cost of services. We calculated averages using individual sampling weights and countries were weighted equally.

c Satisfaction was measured by the proportion of people who reported being “very satisfied with the services received” as opposed to “more or less satisfied” or “not satisfied.”

Notes: We extracted data from service provision assessment surveys conducted in Democratic Republic of the Congo 2018, Ethiopia 2014, Haiti 2017, Kenya 2010, Malawi 2013, Nepal 2015, Senegal 2017 and United Republic of Tanzania 2015 (see also the data repository).24

Discussion

Using nationally representative surveys from 56 countries, we found that using hospitals for essential primary care services is relatively common in low- and middle-income countries. Around one in five people seeking contraceptives, routine antenatal care or care for minor childhood illnesses went to a public hospital instead of a health centre.

Using hospitals for these services was more common among the wealthiest, urban residents and the most educated women, reflecting that hospital use is highly inequitable. This finding may also reflect a lack of trust and a perception that the quality of care is poor in public health centres.27 An increasing number of studies are showing that people are willing to travel further distances or pay more out-of-pocket to seek what they consider better quality care.28–31 Rising expectations among wealthier populations may lead people aspiring to higher standards of care to bypass health centres, believing that quality is better at hospitals.10 In low- and middle-income countries, hospitals tend to be substantially better equipped, have better diagnostic and laboratory capacity and employ a greater number of physicians and qualified health providers than health centres.32 Hospitals may therefore be seen as a more effective solution to primary care needs. These aspects may especially attract those who can afford to visit hospitals.

In adjusted models, we found that a country’s insurance model (proportion of total health spending that was out-of-pocket) did not influence the source of care. However, the positive association of hospital use with a country’s total health expenditure per capita may reflect that governments are disproportionately directing health resources to hospitals, by building more, investing in quality, or both. The negative association between government effectiveness and people’s use of hospitals for essential health services may capture countries’ ability to successfully manage a larger set of public health facilities, with resulting better services in health centres. Use of hospitals for children with minor illnesses was less likely in countries surveyed post-2015. Inferences related to changes in hospital use over time must be interpreted with caution as these data are cross-sectional and we only included one survey per country.

Our sub-analysis on quality of care showed that in many countries women who attend antenatal care in hospitals are more likely than those in health centres to have their blood pressure monitored and urine and blood tested. This finding may be linked to a lack of diagnostic capacity for urine and blood testing in health centres or poorer competence levels of providers. In some countries, those who sought care in hospitals for childhood diarrhoea were more likely to receive oral rehydration solutions. This result is surprising given that oral rehydration is a simple low-cost intervention with important health benefits that should be easily provided in health centres.33 Our sub-analysis in eight countries showed that hospital users spent nearly twice as much for the same services. This finding reflects greater spending on some combination of provider or booking charges, diagnostic services and prescriptions. The cost differential is likely an underestimate, because travel costs, which are likely to be higher for hospital visits, were not included.34,35

Our findings are consistent with other studies in low- and middle-income settings. In Ethiopia, the national health accounts survey estimated that around 17% of all outpatient care was provided in government hospitals and that urban residents were three times more likely to use hospitals for outpatient services than were rural residents.36 In contrast, rural residents were more likely to attend health centres. In six middle-income Latin American and Caribbean countries, half of respondents had used hospital emergency departments for a condition they considered treatable in primary care in the past 2 years.37 In high-income countries, studies showed that use of hospitals for non-urgent care was generally more common among low-income individuals and those without health insurance.38,39 Use of hospital emergency departments as a usual source of care has been often studied in high-income countries, and is widely recognized as problematic given the higher cost and lack of continuity of care.40,41 Availability of a source of care that performs primary care functions well is associated with more effective, equitable and efficient health services and better overall health for individuals.41,42

Our study covered a large set of lower-income countries using a standardized measurement approach and can therefore provide input for future planning of health systems in low- and middle-income countries. Nonetheless, our study has limitations. First, because the demographic and health surveys do not include specific hospital and clinic categories for the private sector, we were unable to include private hospitals, which likely account for a considerable share of care-seeking in many countries. Second, our analysis was limited to reproductive, maternal and child health services. Even larger proportions of people may be using hospitals for routine care for diabetes, hypertension or human immunodeficiency virus infection, as these services have more recently been added to essential packages in low- and middle-income countries.43 In addition, because of data limitations, our analysis only included women (aged 15–49 years) and children younger than 5 years, and did not include data on primary care services for teenagers or adult men. The true proportion of hospital use for the full range of services offered in health centres is likely considerably higher if other health services and private sector hospitals were included. Facility types and disease severity were also self-reported by women interviewed in demographic and health surveys and may be misclassified. Our regression analyses excluded other factors potentially affecting the magnitude of hospital use, including the type of insurance cover as well as the relative share of private sector facilities. Future research should analyse care-seeking patterns in the light of these potentially confounding factors. Finally, coefficients from multilevel logistic regressions have a conditional, within-cluster interpretation and the magnitude of the association between outcomes and country covariates must be done with caution.44

Our findings have important implications for the design of health systems in low- and middle-income countries and for improving health outcomes. WHO guidance recommends community health centres for provision of people-centred primary care.6,45 Despite this recommendation, we found that many users select hospitals for four services that should be routinely provided with good quality at lower-level facilities. The comprehensive, coordinated, continuous, person-centred care and accessible services that are the hallmark of high-quality primary care may be difficult to provide in hospitals that are geared to more episodic care.46 The services will also almost certainly be more expensive.

Based on these findings, we identify three policy implications. First, the roles of the different levels of care in low- and middle-income country health systems need to be clearly defined. The Lancet Global Health Commission on high-quality health systems in the sustainable development goals era recommended redesigning health systems to ensure that the right health services are provided by the right provider, working in the right place in the health system.12 Health system structures and facility roles are often poorly defined in low- and middle-income countries. Many types of public health facilities, from health posts to regional hospitals, are expected to provide the full range of essential primary care services, including family planning, antenatal care, child vaccination and routine chronic disease management. Many hospitals in low- and middle-income countries have outpatient departments dedicated to these services. Meanwhile, some hospitals struggle to provide high-quality emergency and surgical care and to save the lives of those with complex injuries, obstetric complications or illnesses.47–49 In some countries, higher-level hospitals have become overcrowded, while primary care facilities remain underutilized.50 Reorganizing health-service delivery could improve health outcomes and patient confidence by allowing facilities and providers to focus on the services that they are geared towards providing. The role of the private sector should also be considered in planning service delivery.

Second, if people are to be redirected to use health centres for primary care services, there need to be improvements in the competence, comprehensiveness and convenience of care in health centres, including access to diagnostic services and appropriate opening hours. Governments must ensure that patients in health centres receive the core diagnostic services, treatments and counselling they need to maintain and improve their health. These reforms are needed to improve people’s trust in health centres so that they are willing to use them.

Third, if hospitals are to continue providing a substantial proportion of these primary care services, they need to make improvements to the user experience, people-centredness and continuity and integration of care, while costs must be reduced to ensure equitable access.

To stop the drift towards use of hospitals, structural health system investments such as a strong primary care workforce, excellent management and well-equipped health centres that operate in accordance with people’s lives and needs will be essential. High-quality health systems should maximize people’s health, confidence and economic welfare and do so efficiently and equitably. Investing in high quality primary care that people want to use is a critical first step.

Acknowledgements

We thank Hannah Leslie, Anna Gage, Gabriel Loewinger and Kojo Twum Nimako. TTD is also affiliated with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, United States of America.

Competing interests:

None declared.

References

  • 1.The Lancet. The Astana Declaration: the future of primary health care? Lancet. 2018. October 20;392(10156):1369. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32478-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kruk ME, Ling EJ, Bitton A, Cammett M, Cavanaugh K, Chopra M, et al. Building resilient health systems: a proposal for a resilience index. BMJ. 2017. May 23;357:j2323. 10.1136/bmj.j2323 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kruk ME, Myers M, Varpilah ST, Dahn BT. What is a resilient health system? Lessons from Ebola. Lancet. 2015. May 9;385(9980):1910–12. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60755-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Starfield B. Primary care: concept, evaluation, and policy. New York: Oxford University Press; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kruk ME, Porignon D, Rockers PC, Van Lerberghe W. The contribution of primary care to health and health systems in low- and middle-income countries: a critical review of major primary care initiatives. Soc Sci Med. 2010. March;70(6):904–11. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.The World Health Report 2008: primary health care (now more than ever). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008. Available from: https://www.who.int/whr/2008/en/ [cited 2020 May 1].
  • 7.WHO global strategy on people-centred and integrated health services. Interim report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. Available from: https://www.who.int/servicedeliverysafety/areas/people-centred-care/global-strategy/en/ [cited 2020 May 1].
  • 8.Uscher-Pines L, Pines J, Kellermann A, Gillen E, Mehrotra A. Emergency department visits for nonurgent conditions: systematic literature review. Am J Manag Care. 2013. January;19(1):47–59. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kujawski SA, Leslie HH, Prabhakaran D, Singh K, Kruk ME. Reasons for low utilisation of public facilities among households with hypertension: analysis of a population-based survey in India. BMJ Glob Health. 2018. December 20;3(6):e001002. 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chang J, Wood D, Xiaofeng J, Gifford B. Emerging trends in Chinese healthcare: the impact of a rising middle class. World Hosp Health Serv. 2008;44(4):11–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Li X, Lu J, Hu S, Cheng KK, De Maeseneer J, Meng Q, et al. The primary health-care system in China. Lancet. 2017. December 9;390(10112):2584–94. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33109-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kruk ME, Gage AD, Arsenault C, Jordan K, Leslie HH, Roder-DeWan S, et al. High-quality health systems in the sustainable development goals era: time for a revolution. Lancet Glob Health. 2018. November;6(11):e1196–252. 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30386-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rao KD, Sheffel A. Quality of clinical care and bypassing of primary health centers in India. Soc Sci Med. 2018. June;207:80–8. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Corsi DJ, Neuman M, Finlay JE, Subramanian SV. Demographic and health surveys: a profile. Int J Epidemiol. 2012. December;41(6):1602–13. 10.1093/ije/dys184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.World development indicators [internet]. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2020. Available from: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators [cited 2020 May 1].
  • 16.Worldwide governance indicators [internet]. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2020. Available from: https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/ [cited 2020 May 1].
  • 17.Service Provision Assessment overview. The Demographic and Health Survey program [internet]. Rockville: ICF International; 2007–2016. Available from: https://dhsprogram.com/What-We-Do/Survey-Types/SPA.cfm [cited 2020 Jul 4].
  • 18.Tracking UHC. First global monitoring report. Joint WHO/World Bank Group report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. Available from: https://www.who.int/healthinfo/universal_health_coverage/report/2015/ [cited 2020 May 1]. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kapoor M, Kim R, Sahoo T, Roy A, Ravi S, Kumar AKS, et al. Association of maternal history of neonatal death with subsequent neonatal death in India. JAMA Netw Open. 2020. April 1;3(4):e202887. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.2887 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use. 3rd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/family_planning/SPR-3/en/ [cited 2020 May 1]. [PubMed]
  • 21.WHO Recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/anc-positive-pregnancy-experience/en/ [cited 2020 May 1]. [PubMed]
  • 22.Integrated management of childhood illness: chart booklet. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. Available from: https://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/IMCI_chartbooklet/en/ [cited 2020 May 1].
  • 23.Hodgins S, D’Agostino A. The quality-coverage gap in antenatal care: toward better measurement of effective coverage. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2014. April 8;2(2):173–81. 10.9745/GHSP-D-13-00176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Arsenault C, Kim MK, Aryal A, Faye A, Joseph JP, Kassa M, et al. Supplementary webappendix: Supplementary. materials. Use of hospitals for primary care 2020. [data repository]. San Francisco: Github; 2020. 10.5281/zenodo.3931951 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tukey JW. Exploratory data analysis. Reading: Addison–Wesley; 1977. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49) [internet]. New York: United Nations Statistics Division; 2020. Available from: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/#geo-regions2020 [cited 2020 May 1].
  • 27.Liu Y, Zhong L, Yuan S, van de Klundert J. Why patients prefer high-level healthcare facilities: a qualitative study using focus groups in rural and urban China. BMJ Glob Health. 2018. September 19;3(5):e000854. 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000854 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Elewonibi B, Sato R, Manongi R, Msuya S, Shah I, Canning D. The distance-quality trade-off in women’s choice of family planning provider in north eastern Tanzania. BMJ Glob Health. 2020. February 13;5(2):e002149. 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kruk ME, Hermosilla S, Larson E, Mbaruku GM. Bypassing primary care clinics for childbirth: a cross-sectional study in the Pwani region, United Republic of Tanzania. Bull World Health Organ. 2014. April 1;92(4):246–53. 10.2471/BLT.13.126417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Leonard KL. Active patients in rural African health care: implications for research and policy. Health Policy Plan. 2014. January;29(1):85–95. 10.1093/heapol/czs137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kahabuka C, Kvåle G, Moland KM, Hinderaker SG. Why caretakers bypass Primary Health Care facilities for child care – a case from rural Tanzania. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011. November 17;11(1):315. 10.1186/1472-6963-11-315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Leslie HH, Spiegelman D, Zhou X, Kruk ME. Service readiness of health facilities in Bangladesh, Haiti, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania. Bull World Health Organ. 2017. November 1;95(11):738–48. 10.2471/BLT.17.191916 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Fontaine O, Garner P, Bhan MK. Oral rehydration therapy: the simple solution for saving lives. BMJ. 2007. January 6;334 Suppl 1:s14. 10.1136/bmj.39044.725949.94 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Varela C, Young S, Mkandawire N, Groen RS, Banza L, Viste A. Transportation barriers to access health care for surgical conditions in Malawi: a cross sectional nationwide household survey. BMC Public Health. 2019. March 5;19(1):264. 10.1186/s12889-019-6577-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Arsenault C, Fournier P, Philibert A, Sissoko K, Coulibaly A, Tourigny C, et al. Emergency obstetric care in Mali: catastrophic spending and its impoverishing effects on households. Bull World Health Organ. 2013. March 1;91(3):207–16. 10.2471/BLT.12.108969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ethiopian health accounts. Household health service utilization and expenditure survey 2015/16. Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Macinko J, Guanais FC, Mullachery P, Jimenez G. Gaps in primary care and health system performance in six Latin American and Caribbean countries. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016. August 1;35(8):1513–21. 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1366 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Benahmed N, Laokri S, Zhang WH, Verhaeghe N, Trybou J, Cohen L, et al. Determinants of nonurgent use of the emergency department for pediatric patients in 12 hospitals in Belgium. Eur J Pediatr. 2012. December;171(12):1829–37. 10.1007/s00431-012-1853-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Cowling TE, Harris M, Watt H, Soljak M, Richards E, Gunning E, et al. Access to primary care and the route of emergency admission to hospital: retrospective analysis of national hospital administrative data. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016. June;25(6):432–40. 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004338 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Poku BA, Hemingway P. Reducing repeat paediatric emergency department attendance for non-urgent care: a systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions. Emerg Med J. 2019. July;36(7):435–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457–502. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.DeVoe JE, Tillotson CJ, Wallace LS, Angier H, Carlson MJ, Gold R. Parent and child usual source of care and children’s receipt of health care services. Ann Fam Med. 2011. Nov-Dec;9(6):504–13. 10.1370/afm.1300 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Witter S, Zou G, Diaconu K, Senesi RGB, Idriss A, Walley J, et al. Opportunities and challenges for delivering non-communicable disease management and services in fragile and post-conflict settings: perceptions of policy-makers and health providers in Sierra Leone. Confl Health. 2020. January 6;14(1):3. 10.1186/s13031-019-0248-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Austin PC, Merlo J. Intermediate and advanced topics in multilevel logistic regression analysis. Stat Med. 2017. September 10;36(20):3257–77. 10.1002/sim.7336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.WHO global strategy on people-centred and integrated health services. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. Available from: https://www.who.int/servicedeliverysafety/areas/people-centred-care/global-strategy/en/ [cited 2020 May 1].
  • 46.Bitton A, Veillard JH, Basu L, Ratcliffe HL, Schwarz D, Hirschhorn LR. The 5S-5M-5C schematic: transforming primary care inputs to outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2018. October 2;3 Suppl 3:e001020. 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ng-Kamstra JS, Arya S, Greenberg SLM, Kotagal M, Arsenault C, Ljungman D, et al. Perioperative mortality rates in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Glob Health. 2018. June 22;3(3):e000810. 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000810 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Obermeyer Z, Abujaber S, Makar M, Stoll S, Kayden SR, Wallis LA, et al. ; Acute Care Development Consortium. Emergency care in 59 low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2015. August 1;93(8):577–586G. 10.2471/BLT.14.148338 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Vogel J, Carroli G, Lumbiganon P, Qureshi Z, et al. Moving beyond essential interventions for reduction of maternal mortality (the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health): a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2013. May 18;381(9879):1747–55. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60686-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Wu D, Lam TP. Underuse of primary care in China: the scale, causes, and solutions. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016. Mar-Apr;29(2):240–7. 10.3122/jabfm.2016.02.150159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Bulletin of the World Health Organization are provided here courtesy of World Health Organization

RESOURCES