基于理性选择理论的患者医疗选择研究:一项来自中国的横断面调查。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jin Li, Ning Zhao, Mei Gu, Danhui Li, Jia Yang
{"title":"基于理性选择理论的患者医疗选择研究:一项来自中国的横断面调查。","authors":"Jin Li, Ning Zhao, Mei Gu, Danhui Li, Jia Yang","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmae039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe how patients choose between primary care institutions (PCIs) and non-PCIs using rational choice theory from the perspective of survival rationality, economic rationality, and social rationality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multi-stage stratified sampling and convenience sampling were applied to select 1723 patients to conduct the questionnaire survey. Chi-square test and binary logistic regression were performed to analyze the factors associated with patients' choice of PCIs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total 55.83% of 1723 patients would attend a PCIs for healthcare. The results of the univariate analysis revealed that patients who are female (58.46%, P = .015), suffering from chronic diseases (56.26%, P = .047), inpatients (67.58%, P < .001), Beijing (59.62%, P = .002), partial understanding of the family doctor contracting system (62.30%, P < .001), and not understanding of the medical alliance policy (58.04%, P = .031) had significantly higher probability of choosing PCIs. Logistic regression analysis showed that females were more unwilling to attend PCIs (odds ratio (OR) = 0.822, 95%CI: 0.676-0.999). Following survival rationality, patients without chronic diseases were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.834, 95%CI: 1.029-3.268), and inpatients were more unlikely to attend PCIs (OR = 0.581, 95%CI: 0.437-0.774). From an economic rationality perspective, patients from the Fujian province were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.424, 95%CI: 1.081-1.876). From a social rationality perspective, patients who partial understanding of the family doctor contracting system were more unlikely to attend PCIs (OR = 0.701, 95%CI: 0.551-0.892), and patients who partial and complete understanding of the medical alliance policy were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.340, 95%CI: 1.064-1.687; OR = 1.485, 95%CI: 1.086-2.030).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Survival, economic, and social rationality are involved in patients' choice to attend PCIs. Compared to survival rationality and social rationality, economic rationality showed a lower association with patients' choice to attend PCIs. Medical institutions are recommended to adopt a \"patient health-centered\" approach when providing medical services and further optimize the family doctor contracting system and construction of medical alliances.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A study of patients' choice of medical treatment based on rational choice theory: a cross-sectional survey from China.\",\"authors\":\"Jin Li, Ning Zhao, Mei Gu, Danhui Li, Jia Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/fampra/cmae039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe how patients choose between primary care institutions (PCIs) and non-PCIs using rational choice theory from the perspective of survival rationality, economic rationality, and social rationality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multi-stage stratified sampling and convenience sampling were applied to select 1723 patients to conduct the questionnaire survey. Chi-square test and binary logistic regression were performed to analyze the factors associated with patients' choice of PCIs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total 55.83% of 1723 patients would attend a PCIs for healthcare. The results of the univariate analysis revealed that patients who are female (58.46%, P = .015), suffering from chronic diseases (56.26%, P = .047), inpatients (67.58%, P < .001), Beijing (59.62%, P = .002), partial understanding of the family doctor contracting system (62.30%, P < .001), and not understanding of the medical alliance policy (58.04%, P = .031) had significantly higher probability of choosing PCIs. Logistic regression analysis showed that females were more unwilling to attend PCIs (odds ratio (OR) = 0.822, 95%CI: 0.676-0.999). Following survival rationality, patients without chronic diseases were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.834, 95%CI: 1.029-3.268), and inpatients were more unlikely to attend PCIs (OR = 0.581, 95%CI: 0.437-0.774). From an economic rationality perspective, patients from the Fujian province were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.424, 95%CI: 1.081-1.876). From a social rationality perspective, patients who partial understanding of the family doctor contracting system were more unlikely to attend PCIs (OR = 0.701, 95%CI: 0.551-0.892), and patients who partial and complete understanding of the medical alliance policy were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.340, 95%CI: 1.064-1.687; OR = 1.485, 95%CI: 1.086-2.030).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Survival, economic, and social rationality are involved in patients' choice to attend PCIs. Compared to survival rationality and social rationality, economic rationality showed a lower association with patients' choice to attend PCIs. Medical institutions are recommended to adopt a \\\"patient health-centered\\\" approach when providing medical services and further optimize the family doctor contracting system and construction of medical alliances.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmae039\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmae039","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的从生存理性、经济理性和社会理性的角度,运用理性选择理论描述患者如何在基层医疗机构(PCI)和非PCI之间做出选择:方法:采用多阶段分层抽样和便利抽样的方法,选择 1723 名患者进行问卷调查。采用卡方检验和二元逻辑回归分析患者选择 PCI 的相关因素:结果:在 1723 名患者中,共有 55.83% 的患者会选择 PCI 进行医疗保健。单变量分析结果显示,女性患者(58.46%,P = .015)、慢性病患者(56.26%,P = .047)、住院患者(67.58%,P 结论:患者选择 PCI 的相关因素包括生存、经济和社会因素:患者选择接受 PCI 治疗与生存、经济和社会理性有关。与生存理性和社会理性相比,经济理性与患者选择接受 PCI 治疗的相关性较低。建议医疗机构在提供医疗服务时以 "患者健康为中心",进一步优化家庭医生签约制度和医联体建设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A study of patients' choice of medical treatment based on rational choice theory: a cross-sectional survey from China.

Objective: To describe how patients choose between primary care institutions (PCIs) and non-PCIs using rational choice theory from the perspective of survival rationality, economic rationality, and social rationality.

Methods: Multi-stage stratified sampling and convenience sampling were applied to select 1723 patients to conduct the questionnaire survey. Chi-square test and binary logistic regression were performed to analyze the factors associated with patients' choice of PCIs.

Results: In total 55.83% of 1723 patients would attend a PCIs for healthcare. The results of the univariate analysis revealed that patients who are female (58.46%, P = .015), suffering from chronic diseases (56.26%, P = .047), inpatients (67.58%, P < .001), Beijing (59.62%, P = .002), partial understanding of the family doctor contracting system (62.30%, P < .001), and not understanding of the medical alliance policy (58.04%, P = .031) had significantly higher probability of choosing PCIs. Logistic regression analysis showed that females were more unwilling to attend PCIs (odds ratio (OR) = 0.822, 95%CI: 0.676-0.999). Following survival rationality, patients without chronic diseases were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.834, 95%CI: 1.029-3.268), and inpatients were more unlikely to attend PCIs (OR = 0.581, 95%CI: 0.437-0.774). From an economic rationality perspective, patients from the Fujian province were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.424, 95%CI: 1.081-1.876). From a social rationality perspective, patients who partial understanding of the family doctor contracting system were more unlikely to attend PCIs (OR = 0.701, 95%CI: 0.551-0.892), and patients who partial and complete understanding of the medical alliance policy were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.340, 95%CI: 1.064-1.687; OR = 1.485, 95%CI: 1.086-2.030).

Conclusions: Survival, economic, and social rationality are involved in patients' choice to attend PCIs. Compared to survival rationality and social rationality, economic rationality showed a lower association with patients' choice to attend PCIs. Medical institutions are recommended to adopt a "patient health-centered" approach when providing medical services and further optimize the family doctor contracting system and construction of medical alliances.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Family practice
Family practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries. Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration. The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信