Population expectations of primary care quality in 18 countries: a cross-sectional analysis of data from the People's Voice Survey.

Todd P Lewis, Shalom Sabwa, Joao Breda, Susanne Carai, Emma Clarke-Deelder, Svetlana V Doubova, Günther Fink, Patricia J Garcia, Ezequiel Garcia-Elorrio, Hwa-Young Lee, Sailesh Mohan, Inbarani Naidoo, Juhwan Oh, Emelda A Okiro, Ashenif Tadele, Rosanna Tarricone, Marius-Ionuț Ungureanu, Xiaohui Wang, Dong Roman Xu, Margaret E Kruk
{"title":"Population expectations of primary care quality in 18 countries: a cross-sectional analysis of data from the People's Voice Survey.","authors":"Todd P Lewis, Shalom Sabwa, Joao Breda, Susanne Carai, Emma Clarke-Deelder, Svetlana V Doubova, Günther Fink, Patricia J Garcia, Ezequiel Garcia-Elorrio, Hwa-Young Lee, Sailesh Mohan, Inbarani Naidoo, Juhwan Oh, Emelda A Okiro, Ashenif Tadele, Rosanna Tarricone, Marius-Ionuț Ungureanu, Xiaohui Wang, Dong Roman Xu, Margaret E Kruk","doi":"10.1016/j.lanprc.2026.100151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Expectations for health-care quality affect how populations rate primary care, influencing tolerance of poor-quality care and demand for improvement, yet how expectations align with standards of practice remains poorly understood. We aimed to measure population expectations of primary care and their determinants within and across countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional analysis, we used nationally representative data from the People's Voice Survey collected between May 9, 2022, and Dec 21, 2023, in Ethiopia, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Argentina (Province of Mendoza), Uruguay, Laos, India, China, South Korea, Romania, Greece, Italy, the UK, and the USA. Adults aged 18 years and older with at least one health-care visit in the past 12 months were included. Expectations were assessed using two anchoring vignettes, one depicting poor-quality primary care and one depicting adequate-quality primary care, administered via a mobile telephone survey, household interview, or nationally representative web panels. Respondents rated each vignette on a Likert scale: poor, fair, good, very good, or excellent. Low expectations were defined as rating the poor-quality care vignette as fair, good, very good, or excellent, and high expectations were defined as rating the adequate-quality care vignette as poor, fair, or good. Multivariable logistic regression models identified determinants of expectations, including covariates covering demographics, health status, care utilisation and experience, and system competence.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Among 18 312 respondents (10 000 [54·6%] female and 8312 [45·4%] male; mean age 44 years [SD 17]), 2955 (16·1%) rated poor-quality primary care as fair or better and 11 787 (64·4%) rated adequate-quality primary care as less than very good. The proportion of respondents with low expectations of primary care ranged from 70 (6·3%) of 1112 in the UK to 530 (41·1%) of 1290 in South Korea. The proportion of respondents with high expectations of primary care ranged from 563 (40·1%) of 1404 in Nigeria to 494 (85·0%) of 581 in Italy. Older age, female gender, higher educational attainment, higher income, and use of private care (<i>vs</i> public care) were all associated with reduced odds of low expectations. Respondents with higher self-rated health had higher odds of low expectations (<i>vs</i> those with poor self-rated health). Activated patients (ie, those who were confident in raising concerns with their provider and that they were responsible for managing their own health) had lower odds of low expectations and lower odds of high expectations (<i>vs</i> non-activated patients). And positive perceptions of government management of COVID-19 were associated with high odds of low expectations and low odds of high expectations.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Populations can often misjudge primary care quality, with substantial cross-national variation. Recognising and measuring expectations are essential for accurately interpreting health system ratings and guiding efforts to improve primary care. Policy makers should invest in strategies that strengthen health literacy and patient activation, empowering populations to recognise and demand high-quality primary care.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Inter-American Development Bank, the Eckenstein-Geigy Professorship, Initiative on the Future of Health and Economic Resiliency in Africa, National Natural Science Foundation of China, WHO Regional Office for Europe, and the Taejae Foundation.</p>","PeriodicalId":521027,"journal":{"name":"The Lancet. Primary care","volume":"2 5","pages":"None"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13269253/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Lancet. Primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanprc.2026.100151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Expectations for health-care quality affect how populations rate primary care, influencing tolerance of poor-quality care and demand for improvement, yet how expectations align with standards of practice remains poorly understood. We aimed to measure population expectations of primary care and their determinants within and across countries.

Methods: In this cross-sectional analysis, we used nationally representative data from the People's Voice Survey collected between May 9, 2022, and Dec 21, 2023, in Ethiopia, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Argentina (Province of Mendoza), Uruguay, Laos, India, China, South Korea, Romania, Greece, Italy, the UK, and the USA. Adults aged 18 years and older with at least one health-care visit in the past 12 months were included. Expectations were assessed using two anchoring vignettes, one depicting poor-quality primary care and one depicting adequate-quality primary care, administered via a mobile telephone survey, household interview, or nationally representative web panels. Respondents rated each vignette on a Likert scale: poor, fair, good, very good, or excellent. Low expectations were defined as rating the poor-quality care vignette as fair, good, very good, or excellent, and high expectations were defined as rating the adequate-quality care vignette as poor, fair, or good. Multivariable logistic regression models identified determinants of expectations, including covariates covering demographics, health status, care utilisation and experience, and system competence.

Findings: Among 18 312 respondents (10 000 [54·6%] female and 8312 [45·4%] male; mean age 44 years [SD 17]), 2955 (16·1%) rated poor-quality primary care as fair or better and 11 787 (64·4%) rated adequate-quality primary care as less than very good. The proportion of respondents with low expectations of primary care ranged from 70 (6·3%) of 1112 in the UK to 530 (41·1%) of 1290 in South Korea. The proportion of respondents with high expectations of primary care ranged from 563 (40·1%) of 1404 in Nigeria to 494 (85·0%) of 581 in Italy. Older age, female gender, higher educational attainment, higher income, and use of private care (vs public care) were all associated with reduced odds of low expectations. Respondents with higher self-rated health had higher odds of low expectations (vs those with poor self-rated health). Activated patients (ie, those who were confident in raising concerns with their provider and that they were responsible for managing their own health) had lower odds of low expectations and lower odds of high expectations (vs non-activated patients). And positive perceptions of government management of COVID-19 were associated with high odds of low expectations and low odds of high expectations.

Interpretation: Populations can often misjudge primary care quality, with substantial cross-national variation. Recognising and measuring expectations are essential for accurately interpreting health system ratings and guiding efforts to improve primary care. Policy makers should invest in strategies that strengthen health literacy and patient activation, empowering populations to recognise and demand high-quality primary care.

Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Inter-American Development Bank, the Eckenstein-Geigy Professorship, Initiative on the Future of Health and Economic Resiliency in Africa, National Natural Science Foundation of China, WHO Regional Office for Europe, and the Taejae Foundation.

18个国家的人口对初级保健质量的期望:对人民呼声调查数据的横断面分析。
背景:对卫生保健质量的期望影响人们对初级保健的评价,影响对低质量保健的容忍度和改进需求,但人们对期望如何与实践标准保持一致仍知之甚少。我们的目的是衡量人口对初级保健的期望及其在国家内部和国家之间的决定因素。方法:在这一横断面分析中,我们使用了从2022年5月9日至2023年12月21日在埃塞俄比亚、尼日利亚、肯尼亚、南非、哥伦比亚、秘鲁、墨西哥、阿根廷(门多萨省)、乌拉圭、老挝、印度、中国、韩国、罗马尼亚、希腊、意大利、英国和美国收集的具有全国代表性的人民之声调查数据。在过去12个月内至少有过一次保健就诊的18岁及以上成年人被纳入研究对象。通过移动电话调查、家庭访谈或全国代表性的网络小组进行评估,使用两个锚定小插曲来评估期望,一个描述低质量的初级保健,一个描述高质量的初级保健。受访者根据李克特量表对每个小插曲进行评分:差、一般、好、非常好或优秀。低期望被定义为将质量较差的护理小插曲评为公平、良好、非常好或优秀,高期望被定义为将质量良好的护理小插曲评为差、公平或良好。多变量逻辑回归模型确定了期望的决定因素,包括涵盖人口统计、健康状况、护理利用和经验以及系统能力的协变量。结果:在18312名受访者中(1万名[54.6%]女性,8312名[45.4%]男性,平均年龄44岁[SD 17]), 2955名(16.1%)受访者认为质量较差的初级保健是公平或更好的,11787名(64%)受访者认为质量良好的初级保健不是很好。对初级保健抱有低期望的受访者比例从英国1112人中的70人(6.3%)到韩国1290人中的530人(41.1%)不等。对初级保健抱有高期望的受访者比例从尼日利亚的563(40.1%)(1404)到意大利的494(85.0%)(581)。年龄较大、女性、受教育程度较高、收入较高和使用私人护理(与公共护理相比)都与低期望的几率降低有关。自评健康状况较高的受访者(相对于自评健康状况较差的受访者)期望较低的几率更高。激活患者(即那些有信心向其提供者提出担忧并对自己的健康负责的患者)低期望的几率较低,高期望的几率较低(与未激活患者相比)。对政府COVID-19管理的积极看法与低期望的高几率和高期望的低几率相关。解释:人群往往会误判初级保健的质量,且存在很大的跨国差异。认识和衡量期望对于准确解释卫生系统评级和指导改善初级保健的工作至关重要。决策者应投资于加强卫生知识普及和患者激活的战略,使人们能够认识和要求高质量的初级保健。资助:比尔和梅林达·盖茨基金会、瑞士联邦外交部、默克夏普公司、美洲开发银行、Eckenstein-Geigy教授、非洲健康和经济复原力未来倡议、中国国家自然科学基金、世卫组织欧洲区域办事处和Taejae基金会。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书