| |
|
|
| |
| 投稿时间： 2015-11-02 最后修改时间： 2015-11-21 摘要点击次数: 3235 全文下载次数: 1823 |
| |
| 引用本文：梁媛, 匡莉, 梅洁,等.广州、东莞和深圳的全科医疗特征功能比较研究[J].中国卫生政策研究,2016,9(1):27-33 |
|
| 梁媛1, 匡莉1, 梅洁1, 汪雨潭1, 赵婧革1, LiLi2 |
1. 中山大学公共卫生学院 广东广州 510080;
2. 凯斯西储大学家庭医学和社区卫生系 美国俄亥俄州克利夫兰 44106 |
| 基金项目:广州市医药卫生科技项目(20141A031003);广东省十三五卫生事业发展研究(粤财社〔2014〕465号) |
| |
|
| | 摘要:目的:评价和比较广州、东莞和深圳三个城市四种全科医疗模式下全科医疗特征功能,为制定政策和强化全科医疗特征功能提供依据。方法:采用二阶段抽样,首先抽取广州市3家社区卫生服务中心,东莞市2家社区卫生服务中心,深圳市3家社康中心和深圳市1家公立医院,然后采用方便抽样的方法,使用本土化后的基础保健工具PCAT-AE对社区卫生服务中心/医院的病人进行问卷调查,测量病人对基础保健服务的体验。共有1712名病人参与调查,其中有效问卷为1645份。结果:深圳港大医院的全科医疗特征功能总体得分(55.3)要高于广州社区(45.9)、东莞社区(49.2)和深圳社区(51.7)的得分,且P<0.05。结论:全科医疗特征功能总体较低,不同全科医疗实践模式显现不同特点,要针对每个地区的具体情况不断完善全科医疗功能服务。 | |
|
|
关键词:全科医疗 实践模式 特征功能 基础保健 评价
|
| |
| A comparative study of general practice attributes in Guangzhou, Dongguan and Shenzhen |
| LIANG Yuan1, KUANG Li1, MEI Jie1, WANG Yu-tan1, ZHAO Jing-ge1, LiLi2 |
1. School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou Guangdong 510080, China;
2. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland Ohio 44106, USA |
| |
|
| | Abstract:Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the core attributes of the four general practice models in Guangzhou, Dongguan and Shenzhen, and to provide the suggestions for strengthening the general practice functions. Methods: We used the two stage sampling method in this study. Firstly, three CHCs in Guangzhou, two in Dongguan and two in Shenzhen, and the general medical outpatient department in the Shenzhen Hospital of the University of Hong Kong were selected. Secondly, we used the convenience sampling method to perform investigation. A PCAT-AE modified Chinese edition was adapted to measure the patients' primary care experience. A total of 1712 patients participated in the questionnaire survey, the number of which 1645 copies were valid. Results: Generally, the general practice core attributes' total scores from that hospital were higher than those from Guangzhou communities (55.3 vs. 45.9, P<0.05), Dongguan communities (55.3 vs. 49.2, P<0.05) and the Shenzhen communities (55.3 vs. 51.7, P<0.05).Conclusion: The primary care implementation was different in accordance with the characteristics of regions, and the general practice core attributes had different characteristics in different models. It could constantly improve the primary care services to each model's specific circumstances. | |
|
|
|
|
