24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      An evaluation of gender equity in different models of primary care practices in Ontario

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The World Health Organization calls for more work evaluating the effect of health care reforms on gender equity in developed countries. We performed this evaluation in Ontario, Canada where primary care models resulting from reforms co-exist.

          Methods

          This cross sectional study of primary care practices uses data collected in 2005-2006. Healthcare service models included in the study consist of fee for service (FFS) based, salaried, and capitation based. We compared the quality of care delivered to women and men in practices of each model. We performed multi-level, multivariate regressions adjusting for patient socio-demographic and economic factors to evaluate vertical equity, and adjusting for these and health factors in evaluating horizontal equity. We measured seven dimensions of health service delivery (e.g. accessibility and continuity) and three dimensions of quality of care using patient surveys (n = 5,361) and chart abstractions (n = 4,108).

          Results

          Health service delivery measures were comparable in women and men, with differences ≤ 2.2% in all seven dimensions and in all models. Significant gender differences in the health promotion subjects addressed were observed. Female specific preventive manoeuvres were more likely to be performed than other preventive care. Men attending FFS practices were more likely to receive influenza immunization than women (Adjusted odds ratio: 1.75, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.05, 2.92). There was no difference in the other three prevention indicators. FFS practices were also more likely to provide recommended care for chronic diseases to men than women (Adjusted difference of -11.2%, CI -21.7, -0.8). A similar trend was observed in Community Health Centers (CHC).

          Conclusions

          The observed differences in the type of health promotion subjects discussed are likely an appropriate response to the differential healthcare needs between genders. Chronic disease care is non equitable in FFS but not in capitation based models. We recommend that efforts to monitor and address gender based differences in the delivery of chronic disease management in primary care be pursued.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring patients' trust in their primary care providers.

          Existing scales to measure trust in physicians have differing content and limited testing. To improve on these measures, a detailed conceptual model was constructed and a large item pool (n = 78) was generated following a detailed conceptual model and expert review. After pilot testing, the best-performing items were validated with a random national sample (n = 959) and a regional sample of HMO members (n =1,199). Various psychometric tests produced a 10-item unidimensional scale consistent with most aspects of the conceptual model. Compared with previous scales, the Wake Forest physician trust scale has a somewhat improved combination of internal consistency, variability, and discriminability. The scale is more strongly correlated with satisfaction, desire to remain with a physician, willingness to recommend to friends, and not seeking second opinions; it is less correlated with insurer trust, membership in managed care, and choice of physician. Correlations are equivalent with lack of disputes, length of relationship, and number of visits [corrected].
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Trust in physicians and medical institutions: what is it, can it be measured, and does it matter?

            Despite the profound and pervasive importance of trust in medical settings, there is no commonly shared understanding of what trust means, and little is known about what difference trust actually makes, what factors affect trust, and how trust relates to other similar attitudes and behaviors. To address this gap in understanding, the emerging theoretical, empirical, and public policy literature on trust in physicians and in medical institutions is reviewed and synthesized. Based on this review and additional research and analysis, a formal definition and conceptual model of trust is presented, with a review of the extent to which this model has been confirmed by empirical studies. This conceptual and empirical understanding has significance for ethics, law, and public policy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Who is at greatest risk for receiving poor-quality health care?

              American adults frequently do not receive recommended health care. The extent to which the quality of health care varies among sociodemographic groups is unknown. We used data from medical records and telephone interviews of a random sample of people living in 12 communities to assess the quality of care received by those who had made at least one visit to a health care provider during the previous two years. We constructed aggregate scores from 439 indicators of the quality of care for 30 chronic and acute conditions and for disease prevention. We estimated the rates at which members of different sociodemographic subgroups received recommended care, with adjustment for the number of chronic and acute conditions, use of health care services, and other sociodemographic characteristics. Overall, participants received 54.9 percent of recommended care. Even after adjustment, there was only moderate variation in quality-of-care scores among sociodemographic subgroups. Women had higher overall scores than men (56.6 percent vs. 52.3 percent, P<0.001), and participants below the age of 31 years had higher scores than those over the age of 64 years (57.5 percent vs. 52.1 percent, P<0.001). Blacks (57.6 percent) and Hispanics (57.5 percent) had slightly higher scores than whites (54.1 percent, P<0.001 for both comparisons). Those with annual household incomes over 50,000 dollars had higher scores than those with incomes of less than 15,000 dollars (56.6 percent vs. 53.1 percent, P<0.001). The differences among sociodemographic subgroups in the observed quality of health care are small in comparison with the gap for each subgroup between observed and desirable quality of health care. Quality-improvement programs that focus solely on reducing disparities among sociodemographic subgroups may miss larger opportunities to improve care. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central
                1471-2458
                2010
                23 March 2010
                : 10
                : 151
                Affiliations
                [1 ]C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Élisabeth Bruyère Research Institute, 43 Bruyère Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]University of Ottawa, Department of Family Medicine, 43 Bruyère St, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ]University of Ottawa, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]University of Ottawa, Institute of Population Health, 1 Stewart St, Room 300, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                Article
                1471-2458-10-151
                10.1186/1471-2458-10-151
                2856534
                20331861
                7ec5c306-f91d-4098-9707-97ece9ab59e2
                Copyright ©2010 Dahrouge et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 22 September 2009
                : 23 March 2010
                Categories
                Research article

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article