Publication: Assessing a national policy on strengthening chronic care in primary care settings of a middle-income country using patients’ perspectives
Issued Date
2021-12-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14726963
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85102525589
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
BMC Health Services Research. Vol.21, No.1 (2021)
Suggested Citation
Wichai Aekplakorn, Paibul Suriyawongpaisal, Samrit Srithamrongsawadi, Phanuwich Kaewkamjonchai Assessing a national policy on strengthening chronic care in primary care settings of a middle-income country using patients’ perspectives. BMC Health Services Research. Vol.21, No.1 (2021). doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06220-x Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/77620
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Assessing a national policy on strengthening chronic care in primary care settings of a middle-income country using patients’ perspectives
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: To improve care for patients with chronic diseases, a recent policy initiative in Thailand focused on strengthening primary care based on the concept of Chronic Care Model (CCM). This study aimed to assess the perception of patients about the health care services after the implementation. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 4071 patients with hypertension and/or diabetes registered with 27 primary care units and 11 hospital non-communicable diseases (NCDs) clinics in 11 provinces. The patients were interviewed using a validated questionnaire of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care. Upgraded primary care units (PCUs) were ordinary PCUs with the multi-professional team including a physician. Trained upgraded PCUs were upgraded PCUs with the training input. Structural equation modeling was used to create subscale scores for CCM and 5 A model characteristics. Mixed effect logistic models were employed to examine the association of subscales (high vs low score) of patient perception of the care quality with type of PCUs. Results: Compared to hospital NCD clinics, ordinary PCUs were the best in the odds of receiving high score for every CCM subscale (ORs: 1.46–1.85; p < 0.05), whereas the trained upgraded PCUs were better in terms of follow-up (ORs:1.37; p < 0.05), and the upgraded PCU did not differ in all domains. According to the 5 A model subscales, patient assessment also revealed better performance of ordinary PCUs in all domains compared to hospital NCD clinics whereas upgraded PCUs and trained upgraded PCUs did so in some domains. Seeing the same doctor on repeated visits (ORs: 1.82–2.17; p < 0.05) or having phone contacts with the providers (ORs:1.53–1.99; p < 0.05) were found beneficial using CCM subscales and the 5A model subscales. However, patient assessment by both subscales did not demonstrate a statistically significant association across health insurance status. Conclusions: The policy implementation might not satisfy the patients’ perception on quality of chronic care according to the CCM and the 5A model subscale. However, the arrangement of chronic care with patients seeing the same doctors or patients having telephone contact with healthcare providers may satisfy the patients’ perceived needs.