Primary care performance in a Ugandan rural district: cross-sectional descriptive study.

IF 2.5 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE BJGP Open Pub Date : 2024-11-06 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0105
Innocent Kabahena Besigye, Robert James Mash
{"title":"Primary care performance in a Ugandan rural district: cross-sectional descriptive study.","authors":"Innocent Kabahena Besigye, Robert James Mash","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To strengthen primary health care (PHC), there is a need to measure its performance.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To measure primary care performance in one rural Ugandan district.</p><p><strong>Design and study setting: </strong>A cross-sectional survey of Tororo District administered the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT) across a sample of 51 facilities. There were four levels of health facilities (health centres II to general hospital).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Random sample of 100 users was obtained from each level while including all primary care providers and managers. Data was collected in REDCap software, and analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences vs23.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 35.1% of users had a strong affiliation with their PHC facility. Overall primary care score suggested that performance was acceptable to the majority of users (58.9% rating performance at least acceptable). Ongoing care was rated by users as very poor (<25% of people rating it at least acceptable). Comprehensiveness (services available) was rated poor by users (<u><</u>50% finding it at least acceptable). Users rated first contact access and coordination (information systems) acceptable (51-75% finding them at least acceptable). Person-centredness and comprehensiveness (services provided) were rated good by users (>75% rating them as acceptable or more). Providers and users differed significantly in their scoring across all domains, with providers usually more positive. Performance significantly improved as the PHC level increased.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Primary care performance in the study district was sub-optimal. The PCAT identified primary care functions that needed improving and may be a useful tool to measure PHC performance across the region.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To strengthen primary health care (PHC), there is a need to measure its performance.

Aim: To measure primary care performance in one rural Ugandan district.

Design and study setting: A cross-sectional survey of Tororo District administered the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT) across a sample of 51 facilities. There were four levels of health facilities (health centres II to general hospital).

Method: Random sample of 100 users was obtained from each level while including all primary care providers and managers. Data was collected in REDCap software, and analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences vs23.

Results: Only 35.1% of users had a strong affiliation with their PHC facility. Overall primary care score suggested that performance was acceptable to the majority of users (58.9% rating performance at least acceptable). Ongoing care was rated by users as very poor (<25% of people rating it at least acceptable). Comprehensiveness (services available) was rated poor by users (<50% finding it at least acceptable). Users rated first contact access and coordination (information systems) acceptable (51-75% finding them at least acceptable). Person-centredness and comprehensiveness (services provided) were rated good by users (>75% rating them as acceptable or more). Providers and users differed significantly in their scoring across all domains, with providers usually more positive. Performance significantly improved as the PHC level increased.

Conclusion: Primary care performance in the study district was sub-optimal. The PCAT identified primary care functions that needed improving and may be a useful tool to measure PHC performance across the region.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
乌干达农村地区的初级保健绩效:横断面描述性研究。
背景:目的:衡量乌干达一个农村地区的初级保健绩效:在托罗罗地区进行了一项横向调查,在 51 家医疗机构中使用了初级医疗评估工具 (PCAT)。共有四级医疗机构(二级医疗中心至综合医院):方法:从每个级别随机抽取 100 名用户,同时包括所有初级保健提供者和管理者。数据使用 REDCap 软件收集,并使用社会科学统计软件包 vs23 进行分析:结果:只有 35.1%的用户与其初级保健机构有密切联系。初级保健的总体得分表明,大多数用户对其表现是可以接受的(58.9%的用户认为其表现至少是可以接受的)。用户对持续护理的评价很差(50%的用户认为至少可以接受)。用户对首次接触和协调(信息系统)的评价是可以接受的(51-75% 的用户认为至少可以接受)。以人为本和全面性(提供的服务)被用户评为良好(超过 75% 的用户认为可以接受或以上)。医疗服务提供者和用户在所有领域的评分差异很大,医疗服务提供者通常更积极。随着初级保健服务水平的提高,其表现也明显改善:结论:研究地区的初级保健绩效不尽如人意。PCAT 确定了需要改进的初级保健功能,可作为衡量整个地区初级保健绩效的有用工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
General practice characteristics associated with pay-for-performance in the UK: a systematic review. How do GPs communicate the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway to patients? A qualitative study of GP-patient consultations. Could a behaviour change intervention be used to address under-recognition of work-related asthma in primary care? A systematic review. Editorial: Global health inequity and primary care. Clinical decision making and risk appraisal using electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) for cancer diagnosis: A qualitative study of GP experiences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1