Search

Health disparities, also known as health inequities, are systematic and potentially remediable differences in one or more aspects of health across population groups defined socially, economically, demographically, or geographically ( 88 ). This topic has been the subject of research stretching back at least decades. Reports and studies have delved into how inequities develop in different societies and, with particular regard to health services, in access to and financing of health systems. In this review, we consider empirical studies from the United States and elsewhere, and we focus on how one aspect of health systems, clinical care, contributes to maintaining systematic differences in health across population groups characterized by social disadvantage. We consider inequities in clinical care and the policies that influence them. We develop a framework for considering the structural and behavioral components of clinical care and review the existing literature for evidence that is likely to be generalizable across health systems over time. Starting with the assumption that health services, as one aspect of social services, ought to enhance equity in health care, we conclude with a discussion of threats to that role and what might be done about them.

As of 2005, the literature on the benefits of primary care oriented health systems was consistent in showing greater effectiveness, greater efficiency, and greater equity. In the ensuing five years, nothing changed that conclusion, but there is now greater understanding of the mechanisms by which the benefits of primary care are achieved. We now know that, within certain bounds, neither the wealth of a country nor the total number of health personnel are related to health levels. What counts is the existence of key features of health policy (Primary Health Care): universal financial coverage under government control or regulation, attempts to distribute resources equitably, comprehensiveness of services, and low or no copayments for primary care services. All of these, in combination, produce better primary care: greater first contact access and use, more person-focused care over time, greater range of services available and provided when needed, and coordination of care. The evidence is no longer confined mainly to industrialized countries, as new studies show it to be the case in middle and lower income countries. The endorsements of the World Health Organization (in the form of the reports of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health and the World Health Report of 2008, as well a number of other international commissions, reflect the widespread acceptance of the importance of primary health care. Primary health care can now be measured and assessed; all innovations and enhancements in it must serve its essential features in order to be useful.

Comorbidity is associated with worse health outcomes, more complex clinical management, and increased health care costs. There is no agreement, however, on the meaning of the term, and related constructs, such as multimorbidity, morbidity burden, and patient complexity, are not well conceptualized. In this article, we review definitions of comorbidity and their relationship to related constructs. We show that the value of a given construct lies in its ability to explain a particular phenomenon of interest within the domains of (1) clinical care, (2) epidemiology, or (3) health services planning and financing. Mechanisms that may underlie the coexistence of 2 or more conditions in a patient (direct causation, associated risk factors, heterogeneity, independence) are examined, and the implications for clinical care considered. We conclude that the more precise use of constructs, as proposed in this article, would lead to improved research into the phenomenon of ill health in clinical care, epidemiology, and health services.

ObjectiveTo develop and validate a simplified, easy to interpret scoring system based on the health profile-types taxonomy for the Spanish version of the Child Health and Illness Profile-Adolescent Edition (CHIP-AE).MethodsThe CHIP-AE was administered to a 1453 Spanish adolescents. Hierarchic and nonhierarchical cluster analyses, as well as conceptual considerations, were used to identify exhaustive, mutually exclusive health profile-types based in four CHIP-AE domain scores: Satisfaction, Discomfort, Resilience, and Risks. Validity of the health profile-types was assessed by testing expected differences among adolescents according to sex, age, socioeconomic status, and self-reported conditions. Logistic models were built.ResultsA total of 13 health profile-types (10 that best fitted the data and three additional considered conceptually necessary) were identified. The largest group of adolescents was in the “Excellent health” or “Good health” types (43.4%), although 11.2% were in the “Worst health” profile. According to a priori hypotheses, being a girl (OR = 1.81; 95% CI = 1.26–2.60), older age (OR = 1.80; 1.26–2.57), and self-reported recurrent (OR = 2.49; 1.72–3.60) and psychosocial disorders (OR = 4.38; 2.92–6.56) were associated to the likelihood of a “Worst health” profile-type.ConclusionsThe Spanish CHIP-AE health profile-types offer a simplified method to describe adolescents' patterns of health, which is valid and similar to the original US taxonomy. This can facilitate interpreting the instrument scores and using it for needs assessment, although additional research is required.

The contributions of primary care to improvements in many aspects of population and individual health are well documented (Starfield, Shi, and Macinko 2005). In addition to the health benefits, there are reductions in health system costs and reductions in disparities in health across population subgroups. The findings are robust over time and across areas and health systems. International comparisons show that countries with health systems based on strong primary care have better health at lower costs. Studies within countries, including both industrialized as well as middle income and developing countries, are consistent in showing greater improvements in health consequent to legislative and administrative policy initiatives directed at strengthening primary care, including increases in the supply and use of primary care practitioners and clinical improvements in primary care practice. The special and critical features of primary care are well known and include first contact access and use of primary care facilities and practitioners; person-focused (not disease-focused) care over time; comprehensiveness of services available and provided within primary care; and coordination of services when they are needed elsewhere (Starfield, Shi, and Macinko 2005). In this issue of Health Services Research, Tom Ricketts and George Holmes published the results of analyses that refined previous analyses from the United States by examining the relationship between the supply of primary care physicians and age-adjusted total, heart disease, and cancer mortality at the county and regional level. Using pooled 1996–2000 U.S. county data, the authors found that the association between primary care physician supply and mortality varies across regions. A greater supply of primary care physicians is associated with decreased mortality on the east coast and in the upper midwest, but the correlation disappears or is reversed in the west (with the exception of Washington state) and south central states. The authors suggested that there are strong regional patterns that make national conclusions suspect. We applaud this excellent work on regional differences in primary care impact and agree that further study is needed to understand these regional differences and policy alternatives to address them. One hypothesis might be that an excessive supply and use of specialists might attenuate the effect of primary care in particular regions. Specialists are trained to do more testing than would be necessary in generalist practice, with consequent more false positive results, adverse effects from the resulting cascade of tests, and with much higher costs. Where the supply of specialists is excessive relative to that of primary care physicians, or where a large tertiary academic medical center is a dominant provider of care, the benefits of primary care physicians may not be achieved because primary care physicians may have a lower threshold for referral to specialists. Thus, the patterns of health outcomes and costs of care are likely to differ greatly across geographic areas with different generalist/specialist ratios and with the extent of dominance of hospital clinics on care, particularly of socially disadvantaged population groups. This may explain why studies such as those of Ricketts and Holmes (2007) show that the effect of the supply of primary care and specialty physicians on health outcomes varies from one region of the country to the other, but the dynamics of the relationship between the two types of physicians has not been explored. Ricketts and Holmes (2007) compared their analyses with those of our previous analysis using county-level data from the United States. However, there were major methodologic differences between the approaches. In our studies, the dependent variable, mortality, was not age adjusted due to the absence of age-adjusted mortality rates in the Area Resource File. Instead, to account for regional differences in age, we included a covariate, the percentage of the population 65 and older. Ricketts and Holmes (2007) computed age-adjusted mortality rates per 10,000 residents, using the Compressed Mortality Files from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, they also included percentage of elderly in the same model, thus overadjusting for the effect of age. While examining the county-level data, we observed a large number of missing values for certain years for some counties. We used the “averaging” imputation method to “create” the values for these counties with missing values. In a few situations, severe outliers were also removed. Based on the methods described in Ricketts and Holmes's (2007) paper, apparently missing values were not specially treated and outliers were not removed. These analytic differences may explain the selected discrepancies in findings between our two studies. Other studies of the ecological association between primary care and population health have used various geographic levels, e.g., cross-nation, U.S. states, metropolitan statistical areas, and counties. Our experience with these analyses indicates that studies conducted at higher geographical units (e.g., cross-nation and U.S. states) tend to demonstrate more significant benefits of primary care than studies carried out at smaller geographical aggregations (e.g., metropolitan statistical areas and counties). We also believe it is more methodologically sound to conduct studies at higher geographical units. For example, through geographical aggregation at the state level, both numerators and denominators of the mortality and other rates are increased so that random fluctuations in these rates are less likely to confound findings. Further, using state-level aggregate data also has the advantage of attenuating the likely “crossover” effect that researchers encounter when smaller units of analysis (such as counties) are used when measuring availability of medical care and mortalities. The “crossover” effect refers to the likelihood that those who require medical care may be attracted to areas where that care is available and not necessarily where they live. Patients are less likely to travel between states than counties or cities to seek medical care. Nonetheless, there may be true differences across regions that are related to health system characteristics in different regions. Studies of the relationship between physician supply and health outcome cannot establish cause and effect. The absence of factors that intervene between workforce supply (a structural characteristic) and outcomes (health, disparities in health, or costs) is a major constraint in explaining the ecological associations. Mere presence of primary care clinicians does not assure availability and accessibility and does not guarantee that existing primary care facilities provide a level of primary care adequate to attain the four cardinal features of first contact use, person-focused care over time, comprehensiveness of services available and provided, and coordination of care. Dartmouth researchers have demonstrated great regional and local variation in quality of care, mostly with regard to hospitalization and surgery rates but also with the quality of hospital services (Skinner, Staiger, and Fisher 2006). The existence of similar regional variations in people's access to and use of primary care as a result of financing and/or organizational differences is highly likely, as are variations in professional practices in different regions, including hours of availability, comprehensiveness of services, referral patterns, and arrangements for coordination between hospital services and primary care practices. We know that past research, with individuals as the unit of analysis, shows strong relationships between people's primary care experiences and their reported and documented health (Starfield, Shi, and Macinko 2005, pp. 463–6). Regional variations in specialist availability and use are also likely to contribute to health outcomes, not always in positive ways (Starfield et al. 2005). The common wisdom that specialist care is always superior care, even for conditions in the province of the specialist, is contradicted by an increasing number of studies (Hartz and James 2006; Smetana et al. 2007). Thus, health services research faces a major and important challenge. Very little research attention has been devoted to health system organization at the macro level. Despite knowledge about the importance of primary care and the development of methods to measure primary care, very few researchers have recognized the importance of the nature of the source of care to responses to care. Even though the strength of people's relationships with primary care is known to be an important influence on health outcomes, a variable reflecting this characteristic has never been part of controlled clinical trials of interventions. Most studies of primary care come from primary care academicians and practitioners, not health services researchers. It is time to recognize that primary care and specialist care have different roles in delivering health services and to understand the impact of these differences on health outcomes and costs.

The NHS Plan signalled the creation of GPs with special interests (GPwSIs) in the UK. The role of a GPwSI involves the acquisition of knowledge and skills that enable GPs to dedicate a portion of their time to performing the role of consultants to their colleagues within the ambit of general practice, and with respect to specific health problems encountered. The objectives behind the introduction of GPwSIs are to improve the patient's access to specialist care, to cut waiting-list times, and to save on referral costs, (and as a consequence to increase the prestige of the GPs involved). However, the reality may not meet these expectations. Before accepting the proposition for universal implementation of GPwSIs empirical evidence is required to demonstrate that overall health is improved (of patients as well as the population); patients, especially patients of doctors working alone or in small groups (specifically in rural areas) are not disadvantaged; referral is improved and made more appropriate to the requirements of patients and their health problems; real prestige is generated, not only among GPs and students, but also among patients; biological views typical of the specialist are not promoted; and a brake is not applied to other alternatives in, or the reorganisation of, primary care.

PURPOSE This study describes referral completion from the perspectives of patients and primary care physicians and identifies predictors of adherence to the referral recommendation. METHODS We observed a cohort of 776 referred patients from the offices of 133 physicians in 81 practices and 30 states. Referring physicians and patients completed self-administered questionnaires at the time of the referral decision and 3 months later. RESULTS Physicians reported that 79.2% of patients referred had a specialist visit, and 83.0% of patients indicated they completed the referral. The most common reasons for not completing the referral were “lack of time” and patient belief that the “health problem had resolved.” The κ statistic for patient-physician agreement on referral completion was 0.34, indicating only fair concordance. Patients in Medicaid plans were less likely than others to complete the referral, and more likely to experience a health plan denial. A longer duration of the patient relationship with the primary care physician and physician/staff scheduling of the specialty appointment were both positive predictors of referral completion. CONCLUSIONS About 8 in 10 patients referred from primary care complete a specialty referral within 3 months. Findings from this study suggest that referral completion rates may be increased by assisting patients with scheduling their specialty appointments and promoting continuity of care.

An increasing number of studies are documenting the existence of inequities, and attention is now turning to exploring pathways through which they are generated and might be attacked. This appears to be an opportune time to consider what has been learned and what future directions might be taken by researchers to fill gaps in knowledge and make research more useful for policy interventions. This commentary briefly reviews some of the main contributions of past research that have possible relevance to pathways, considers what those pathways might include, and concludes with implications for future research. It makes the case for a conceptualization of influences on equity that explicitly includes distribution of health as an outcome as well as characteristics of the society as influences.

This analysis addresses the question, Would increasing the number of primary care physicians improve health outcomes in the United States? A search of the PubMed database for articles containing “primary care physician supply” or “primary care supply” in the title, published between 1985 and 2005, identified 17 studies, and 10 met all inclusion criteria. Results were reanalyzed to assess primary care effect size and the predicted effect on health outcomes of a one-unit increase in primary care physicians per 10,000 population. Primary care physician supply was associated with improved health outcomes, including all-cause, cancer, heart disease, stroke, and infant mortality; low birth weight; life expectancy; and self-rated health. This relationship held regardless of the year (1980–1995) or level of analysis (state, county, metropolitan statistical area (MSA), and non-MSA levels). Pooled results for all-cause mortality suggest that an increase of one primary care physician per 10,000 population was associated with an average mortality reduction of 5.3 percent, or 49 per 100,000 per year.

Background: The aim of the present study was to analyse the use of healthcare services according to health status in a population of children and adolescents, taking into account family socio-demographic characteristics and characteristics of the proxy respondent. Methods: A total of 836 interviews of proxy respondents for children aged 5–14 years from the Barcelona Health Interview Survey carried out in 2000 were included. Dependent variables were visits to a healthcare professional, visits to the emergency room, and hospitalization. Independent variables were: report of medical conditions, health status of the child measured by the Child Health and Illness Profile-Child Edition, Parent Report Form (CHIP-CE/PRF), the educational level of the head of household, social class, child's healthcare coverage, and proxy-related variables [mental health status by means of the General Health Questionnaire-12 items version (GHQ-12), and other]. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate prevalence ratio (PR) to compare the use of healthcare services among different categories of independent variables. Results: Children having worse health status were more likely to have visited a healthcare professional [PR = 1.68; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.09–3.83], whereas children with a reported medical condition were more likely to have made a visit to the emergency service (PR = 1.47; 95% CI = 1.27–2.55) and were hospitalized more frequently (PR = 2.50; 95% CI = 1.12–5.57). Higher likelihood of visits to the emergency room was associated with children having both public and private coverage and a proxy respondent scoring 3 or higher on the GHQ-12. Conclusions: Use of healthcare services differed by health needs but not by social class. Double healthcare coverage and mental distress of the proxy respondent influenced the use of emergency services.

Evidence of the health-promoting influence of primary care has been accumulating ever since researchers have been able to distinguish primary care from other aspects of the health services delivery system. This evidence shows that primary care helps prevent illness and death, regardless of whether the care is characterized by supply of primary care physicians, a relationship with a source of primary care, or the receipt of important features of primary care. The evidence also shows that primary care (in contrast to specialty care) is associated with a more equitable distribution of health in populations, a finding that holds in both cross-national and within-national studies. The means by which primary care improves health have been identified, thus suggesting ways to improve overall health and reduce differences in health across major population subgroups.

PURPOSE The impact of comorbidity on use of primary care and specialty services is poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between morbidity burden, comorbid conditions, and use of primary care and specialist services METHODS The study population was a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries, taken from 1999 Medicare files. We analyzed the number of ambulatory face-to-face patient visits to primary care physicians and specialists for each diagnosis, with each one first considered as the “main” one and then as a comorbid diagnosis to another. Each patient was categorized by extent of total morbidity burden using the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group case-mix system. RESULTS Higher morbidity burden was associated with more visits to specialists, but not to primary care physicians. Patients with most diagnoses had more visits, both to primary care and specialist physicians for comorbid diagnoses than for the main diagnosis itself. Although patients, especially those with high morbidity burdens, generally made more visits to specialists than to primary care physicians, this finding was not always the case. For patients with 66 diagnoses, primary care visits for those diagnoses exceeded specialist visits in all morbidity burden groups; for patients with 87 diagnoses, specialty visits exceeded primary care visits in all morbidity burden groups. CONCLUSION In the elderly, a high morbidity burden leads to higher use of specialist physicians, but not primary care physicians, even for patients with common diagnoses not generally considered to require specialist care. This finding calls for a better understanding of the relative roles of generalists and specialists in the US health services system.

Objectives. We tested the association between the availability of primary care and income inequality on several categories of mortality in US counties. Methods. We used cross-sectional analysis of data from counties (n=3081) in 1990, including analysis of variance and multivariate ordinary least squares regression. Independent variables included primary care resources, income inequality, and sociodemographics. Results. Counties with higher availability of primary care resources experienced between 2% and 3% lower mortality than counties with less primary care. Counties with high income inequality experienced between 11% and 13% higher mortality than counties with less inequality. Conclusions. Primary care resources may partially moderate the effects of income inequality on health outcomes at the county level.

ObjectiveTo compare the characteristics of patients, their disease patterns, and the investigation and referral patterns in private community-governed not-for-profit and private for-profit primary care practices in New Zealand.MethodsObservational study using a representative survey of visits to general practitioners in New Zealand. Practices were categorised according to their ownership: private for-profit or private community-governed not-for-profit. Patient socio-demographic characteristics, treated prevalence and other characteristics of presenting problems, morbidity burden, numbers of investigations and referral patterns were compared.ResultsCompared with for-profit practices, community-governed not-for-profit practices served a younger, largely non-European population, nearly three-quarters of whom had a means-tested benefit card (community services card), 10.5% of whom were not fluent in English, and the majority of whom lived in the 20% of areas ranked as the most deprived (by the NZDep2001 index of socio-economic deprivation). Patients visiting not-for-profit practices were diagnosed with more problems, including higher rates of asthma, diabetes and skin infections, but lower rates of chest infections. The duration of visits was also significantly longer. No differences were observed in the average number of laboratory tests ordered. The odds of specialist referral were higher in for-profit patients when confounding variables were controlled for.ConclusionsCommunity-governed not-for-profit practices in New Zealand serve a poor, largely non-European population who present with somewhat different rates of various problems compared with patients at for-profit practices. The study highlights for communities, policy-makers and purchasers the importance of community-governed not-for-profit practices in meeting the needs of low-income and minority population groups.

Valid, comprehensive instruments to describe, monitor, and evaluate health from childhood through adolescence are almost nonexistent, but are critical for health resource planning, evaluation of policy, preventive, and clinical interventions, and understanding trajectories of health during this important period of life.The objectives of this study were to describe the development, testing, and final versions of the Parent Report Form of the Child Health and Illness Profile-Child Edition (CHIP-CE/PRF), designed to measure the health of children 6 to 11 years old from the caregiver perspective.Parents (N=1049) completed a version of the CHIP-CE/PRF in 4 locations in the United States, either in clinic waiting rooms or their homes. They differed in race/ethnicity, socioeconomic level, and native language.The Parent CHIP-CE is feasible; parents with a 5th-grade reading level complete the 76-item PRF in 20 minutes. Its domains (Satisfaction, Comfort, Risk Avoidance, Resilience, and Achievement) measure structurally distinct, interrelated aspects of health. Domain reliability is high: internal consistency=0.79-0.88; retest reliability (ICC)=0.71-0.85. Validity is supported. The scale scores are sensitive to predicted age, gender, and socioeconomic status differences in health.The CHIP-Child Edition/Parent Report Form is a psychometrically sound, conceptually based measure of child health that works well in diverse populations. It produces scores that parallel those of children on the CHIP-CE/CRF and adolescents on the CHIP-AE and allows health to be consistently assessed from childhood through adolescence. It should meet many needs for describing, monitoring, and understanding child health and evaluating outcomes of interventions.

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between healthcare use and children’s healthcare needs as assessed from the perspectives of children themselves, parents, and healthcare practitioners. Research Design: We conducted a prospective cohort study in which service use was monitored for the 12 months before and after administration of a health survey. Subjects: We studied 384 parents and children aged 6 to 11 years enrolled for 2 years in a northern California health maintenance organization or a Medicaid managed care program in Rhode Island. Measures: Child and parent perspectives on needs were determined using the Child Health and Illness Profile, Child Edition (CHIP-CE). Plan administrative data were used to develop a treated morbidity index, which was based on diagnosis codes recorded by practitioners during the year before the survey and to obtain prospective measures of service use. Results: For both child- and parent-respondents, low satisfaction and comfort scale scores from the CHIP-CE were significant predictors of number of visits. CHIP-CE domain scales unrelated to future use were risk avoidance, resilience, and achievement. Multivariable regression using CHIP-CE information collected from children explained more variation in total physician visits than models that used parent-respondent data. The treated morbidity index was a weaker predictor of physician visits than the CHIP-CE scale scores. None of the domain scales were significant predictors of any emergency department use or any specialist use; however, the treated morbidity index was associated with any specialist use. Conclusions: A child’s sense of well-being and burden of symptoms predict future use. Perceived healthcare needs, as assessed by the CHIP-CE, is a better predictor of children’s service use than evaluated needs as assessed by physician-diagnosed disorders. Our results support the validity of using the responses of children aged 6 to 11 years as a measure of need for future health care.

This pooled, cross-sectional, time-series study assesses the impact of health system variables on the relationship between wage inequality and infant mortality in 19 OECD countries over the period 1970–1996. Data are derived from the OECD, World Value Surveys, Luxembourg Income Study, and political economy databases. Analyses include Pearson correlation and fixed-effects multivariate regression. In year-specific and time-series analyses, the Theil measure of wage inequality (based on industrial sector wages) is positively and statistically significantly associated with infant mortality rates—even while controlling for GDP per capita. Health system variables—in particular the method of healthcare financing and the supply of physicians—significantly attenuated the effect of wage inequality on infant mortality. In fixed effects multivariate regression models controlling for GDP per capita and wage inequality, variables generally associated with better health include income per capita, the method of healthcare financing, and physicians per 1000 population. Alcohol consumption, the proportion of the population in unions, and government expenditures on health were associated with poorer health outcomes. Ambiguous effects were seen for the consumer price index, unemployment rates, the openness of the economy, and voting rates. This study provides international evidence for the impact of wage inequalities on infant mortality. Results suggest that improving aspects of the healthcare system may be one way to partially compensate for the negative effects of social inequalities on population health.

This article critically reviews published literature on the relationship between income inequality and health outcomes. Studies are systematically assessed in terms of design, data quality, measures, health outcomes, and covariates analyzed. At least 33 studies indicate a significant association between income inequality and health outcomes, while at least 12 studies do not find such an association. Inconsistencies include the following: (1) the model of health determinants is different in nearly every study, (2) income inequality measures and data are inconsistent, (3) studies are performed on different combinations of countries and/or states, (4) the time period in which studies are conducted is not consistent, and (5) health outcome measures differ. The relationship between income inequality and health is unclear. Future studies will require a more comprehensive model of health production that includes health system covariates, sufficient sample size, and adjustment for inconsistencies in income inequality data.

Background and Purpose— The goal of this study was to test whether primary care reduces the impact of income inequality on stroke mortality. Methods— This study used pooled time-series cross-sectional analysis of 11 years of state-level data (n=549). Analyses controlled for education levels, unemployment, racial/ethnic composition, and percent urban. Contemporaneous and time-lagged covariates were modeled. Results— Primary care was negatively associated with stroke mortality in models including all covariates ( P P P >0.05). Conclusions— In the absence of social policy that addresses sociodemographic determinants of health, primary care promotion may serve as a palliative strategy for combating stroke mortality and reducing the adverse impact of income inequality on health.

To assess the contribution of primary care systems to a variety of health outcomes in 18 wealthy Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries over three decades.Data were primarily derived from OECD Health Data 2001 and from published literature. The unit of analysis is each of 18 wealthy OECD countries from 1970 to 1998 (total n = 504).Pooled, cross-sectional, time-series analysis of secondary data using fixed effects regression.Secondary analysis of public-use datasets. Primary care system characteristics were assessed using a common set of indicators derived from secondary datasets, published literature, technical documents, and consultation with in-country experts.The strength of a country's primary care system was negatively associated with (a) all-cause mortality, (b) all-cause premature mortality, and (c) cause-specific premature mortality from asthma and bronchitis, emphysema and pneumonia, cardiovascular disease, and heart disease (p0.05 in fixed effects, multivariate regression analyses). This relationship was significant, albeit reduced in magnitude, even while controlling for macro-level (GDP per capita, total physicians per one thousand population, percent of elderly) and micro-level (average number of ambulatory care visits, per capita income, alcohol and tobacco consumption) determinants of population health.(1) Strong primary care system and practice characteristics such as geographic regulation, longitudinality, coordination, and community orientation were associated with improved population health. (2) Despite health reform efforts, few OECD countries have improved essential features of their primary care systems as assessed by the scale used here. (3) The proposed scale can also be used to monitor health reform efforts intended to improve primary care.

BACKGROUND Although comorbidity is very common in the population, little is known about the types of health service that are used by people with comorbid conditions. METHODS Data from claims on the nonelderly were classified by diagnosis and extent of comorbidity, using a case-mix measure known as the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups, to study variation in extent of comorbidity and resource utilization. Visits of patients (adults and children) with 11 conditions were classified as to whether they were to primary care physicians or to other specialists, and whether they involved the chosen condition or other conditions. RESULTS Comorbidity varied within each diagnosis; resource use depended on the degree of comorbidity rather than the diagnosis. When stratified by degree of comorbidity, the number of visits for comorbid conditions exceeded the number of visits for the index condition in almost all comorbidity groups and for visits to both primary care physicians and to specialists. The number of visits to primary care physicians for both the index condition and for comorbid conditions almost invariably exceeded the number of visits to specialists. These patterns differed only for uncommon conditions in which specialists played a greater role in the care of the condition, but not for comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS In view of the high degree of comorbidity, even in a nonelderly population, single-disease management does not appear promising as a strategy to care for patients. In contrast, the burden is on primary care physicians to provide the majority of care, not only for the target condition but for other conditions. Thus, management in the context of ongoing primary care and oriented more toward patients’ overall health care needs appears to be a more promising strategy than care oriented to individual diseases. New paradigms of care that acknowledge actual patterns of comorbidities as well as the need for close coordination between generalists and specialists require support.

Objective.— To determine if there are social class gradients in health in children aged 6 to 11 years. Methods.— Self and parent reports of health of children in 5 sites across the United States were assessed using the Child Health and Illness Profile‐Child Edition. Distribution of scores in 4 domains: satisfaction (with health); comfort; resilience; and risk avoidance were used to create profiles of health. Social class was defined as a composite of parental education and work participation. Results.— Social class gradients were found for all but the satisfaction domain and for most subdomains in the parent version; the most notable gradient was in the risk avoidance domain, with better health the higher the social class. Apparent gradients did not reach statistical significance in the child reports. Children from a higher social class were more likely to be in excellent/average health and less likely to be in poor health profiles than were lower class children. Conclusions.— The findings generally mirror those from a prior study of adolescents, using the same conceptual framework for health and the same measure of social class, and are consistent with a cumulative effect for most aspects of health, and with a critical-period effect for risky behaviors. Ambulatory Pediatrics2002;2:238 246 A world-wide focus on achieving equity 1 and a US national focus on eliminating disparities in health by age, gender, race, ethnicity, social class, and disability 2 has focused attention on elucidating the reasons for inequities and disparities for the purpose of developing alternative strategies to deal with them. The earlier focus on poverty versus nonpoverty did not facilitate explanation of the mechanisms by which disparities arise; it is likely that the pathways to abject poverty are multiple and require multiple and simultaneously applied strategies. Recognition of the existence of social gradients, wherein health is better at each successively higher level of social position, has facilitated the development of hypotheses about the relative impact of a diverse set of adverse influences that manifest themselves in varying degrees along the social spectrum. 3,4 Understanding which pathways are most salient for which health outcomes would facilitate development of more informed health and social policies. The vast majority of studies on gradients have been conducted with adults; the literature has converged on the conclusion that the higher the social class, the lower the prevalence and severity of many, if not most, illnesses. The literature in children, and especially in early schoolage children, is much sparser and less conclusive. In an extensive recent review, Chen et al 5 concluded that there are social gradients in all-cause mortality, mortality from specific common chronic and acute conditions, parents’ ratings of their children’s health, injury rates, and mor

The demand for services for predicting, diagnosing, and managing genetic diseases or diseases with a genetic component is likely to increase faster than the availability of services from medical geneticists and genetic counselors. Health care systems may also impose limitations on referrals to these specialists. If genetic problems are not to be missed and excessive referrals are to be avoided, non-geneticist practitioners will have to recognize when genetic problems should be considered, and initiate diagnosis and even management. Primary-care-centred systems offer the greatest potential for maximizing overall cost-effectiveness, by reducing the demand for specialty services not essential for improving health. But primary-care-centred systems may pose a risk of underdetection and undermanagement of genetic problems if practitioners are not actively supported by information and other educational networks. Several models for dealing with these challenges are presented, including algorithms that aid in recognizing genetic problems.

In this issue of JECH, authors from both the People’s Health Movement 1 and WHO 2 agree that primary healthcare makes a considerable contribution to reducing the adverse impact of social inequalities on health. That is, primary healthcare is a ‘health equity-producing’ social policy. Both groups of authors agree that health systems do not exist in isolation from other social systems. Both provide examples of how the market orientation of neo-liberal globalisation has worked against improvements in general and equity in health specifically. The role of world trade agreements in compromising nutritional status of socially disadvantaged populations provides a powerful case for the importance of inter-sectoral approaches in health policy activities. Both papers speak of ‘primary health care’ rather than of ‘primary care’. The distinction between the two is at the heart of achieving greater equity in health through societal actions. Both clinical practices and system policies need consideration. 3 The literature on ‘primary care’ is largely clinical, having to do with the behaviour of health services professionals and their interactions with people and, increasingly, the subpopulations for whom they provide services. Within the last two decades there has been increasing clarity about which ‘behaviours’ are most important to adequacy of primary care: first contact accessibility and use, identification with a regular source of care that is person (rather than disease) focused care over time, comprehensiveness of services available and provided, and coordination (when care from other places is required). These characteristics, all amenable to assessment in reliable and valid ways, are now so well-known that tools for their assessment are rapidly being adopted in many different places around the world. 4 International comparisons demonstrate that good clinical primary care depends on good primary healthcaredthat is, on specific health system policies for population. Critical among these policies are attempts to distribute resources equitablydthat is, according to need; ‘progressive’ (as distinguished from ‘regressive’) financing under government control or regulation; low or no cost sharing for primary care services; and breadth of services available (comprehensiveness) within the primary care sector. 35 Each of these policy characteristics reflects more general system characteristics: focus on distribution of health characteristics in the populationdthat is, an equity focus rather than just on average levels; progressivity of financing of social services in general; and consideration of population needs rather than demands (which favour the more powerful rather than the disenfranchised). That is, societies that are more equitable tend to be more equitable in many regards, 6 because progressive governments generally promote more progressive policies across a range of social sectors. Primary healthcare-oriented health systems have been shown to be generally more effective in achieving better health (particularly at young ages) at lower costs than is the case for systems more oriented to disease management and specialty care. It is not often recognised that they have more equitable distributions of health as well. Even in the USA, one of the most inequitable societies in the industrialised world, better primary care resources preferentially improve health more in socially disadvantaged populations than in the majority population. 7 A comparison of age adjusted survival from breast cancer in Canada (which has a health system more oriented towards primary care than in the USA) showed a strong socioeconomic gradient in survival from breast cancer in the USA but not in Canada and demonstrated that the survival advantage in cancer is present in low-income areas only and that it is less in women over the age of

Objectives. This study assessed whether income inequality and primary care physician supply have a different effect on mortality among Blacks compared with Whites. Methods. We conducted a multivariate ecologic analysis of 1990 data from 273 US metropolitan areas. Results. Both income inequality and primary care physician supply were significantly associated with White mortality (P < .01). After the inclusion of the socioeconomic status covariates, the effect of income inequality on Black mortality remained significant (P < .01), but the effect of primary care physician supply was no longer significant (P > .10), particularly in areas with high income inequality. Conclusions. Improvement in population health requires addressing socioeconomic determinants of health, including income inequality and primary care availability and access.

Aims—To analyse inequalities by social class in children’s access to and utilisation of health services in Catalonia (Spain),private health insurance coverage,and certain aspects of the quality of care received. Design—Cross sectional study using data from the 1994 Catalan Health Interview Survey. Setting—Child population of Catalonia. Participants—A representative sample of non-institutionalised children younger than 15 years (n = 2433). Main outcome measures—Health services utilisation, perceived health, type of health insurance (only National Health System (NHS) or both NHS and private health insurance), and social class. Results—No inequalities by social class were found for the utilisation of health care services provided by the NHS among children in most need. Double health care coverage does not influence the social pattern of visits. Nevertheless, social inequalities still remain in the use of those health services provided only partially by the NHS (dentist) and when characteristics of the last consultation are taken into account. That is, subjects who paid for a private service waited an average of 14.8 minutes less than those whose visit was paid for by the NHS only. Conclusion—Equitable access and use of medical care services in relation to need, regardless of the type of insurance and social class of their children and families, has been achieved in this region of Spain; diVerences by social class remain for those services incompletely covered by national health insurance and aspects of the quality of care provided. (Arch Dis Child 2000;83:211‐214)

Using the 1996 Community Tracking Study household survey, the authors examined whether income inequality and primary care, measured at the state level, predict individual morbidity as measured by self-rated health status, while adjusting for potentially confounding individual variables. Their results indicate that distributions of income and primary care within states are significantly associated with individuals' self-rated health; that there is a gradient effect of income inequality on self-rated health; and that individuals living in states with a higher ratio of primary care physician to population are more likely to report good health than those living in states with a lower such ratio. From a policy perspective, improvement in individuals' health is likely to require a multi-pronged approach that addresses individual socioeconomic determinants of health, social and economic policies that affect income distribution, and a strengthening of the primary care aspects of health services.

▪ Abstract The Balanced Budget Act of August 1997 was intended to improve the insurance coverage of low-income children. Although no specific mandates for evaluation accompanied the legislation, states are expected to assess its impact. Insurance improves access to and use of health services. The extent to which this is associated with better health depends on the kinds of services received. Access to a regular source of care is a critical characteristic. If this source of care provides good primary care, a variety of benefits would be expected to accrue. Thus, evaluation of the benefits of the State Children's Health Insurance Program should address not only improved coverage by health insurance for eligible children, but also the extent to which children receive high-quality primary care, including appropriate referrals when needed. Maternal access to and use of services is also a critical factor. Targets for evaluation include state activities to (a) enroll through outreach, inform through education, and develop information systems for tracking; (b) assess the degree of penetration of insurance among low-income children and their mothers, the availability of health care personnel, and the adequacy of benefits conferred by the insurance, primary-care services, and back-up specialty services; and (c) obtain evidence of improved health status. This article details approaches that can appropriately be used to address each of these aspects of concern.

Background: Although numerous changes are apparent in the US health care system, little is known about how these changes have altered the work of primary care physicians. Methods: We analyzed a nationally representative sample of 136 233 adult office visits to general internists, general practitioners, and family physicians contained in the 1978 through 1981, 1985, and 1989 through 1994 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys. Annual sample sizes varied between 5662 and 19 977 visits. Measures included the characteristics of patients presenting to primary care physicians, physician activities during these visits, and the disposition of the visits to primary care physicians. Results: Visits to primary care physicians have diminished as a proportion of all adult visits from 52% in 1978 to 41% in 1994. Dramatic trends in adult primary care included the growing racial or ethnic diversity of patients, the doubling (since 1985) of health maintenance organization coverage, increased provision of prevention services, changes in the most common medications, and an 18% increase in the duration of adult visits to primary care physicians. Conclusions: Trends in primary care practice reflect changes in society and in the US health care system, including demographic changes, an emphasis on prevention, and the growth of managed care. The increasing role of managed care, with its emphasis on increased productivity, appears at odds with primary care physicians’ increasing responsibility for prevention and the associated increase in the duration of primary care visits. Arch Fam Med. 1999;8:26-32

Global health provides a special challenge for primary care and general practice, which will become increasingly important in the future as the prevalence of multimorbidity increases with increasing likelihood of survival from acute manifestations of illness, as populations age, and as costs of care increase with increasing availability of technologic interventions. World organizations of primary care physicians need to take up the challenge before it becomes a crisis.

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the preliminary reliability and validity of a set 13 profiles of adolescent health that describe distinct patterns of health and health service requirements on four domains of health.Reliability and validity were tested in four ethnically diverse population samples of urban and rural youths aged 11 to 17-years-old in public schools (N = 4,066). The reliability of the classification procedure and construct validity were examined in terms of the predicted and actual distributions of age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, and family type. School achievement, medical conditions, and the proportion of youths with a psychiatric disorder also were examined as tests of construct validity.The classification method was shown to produce consistent results across the four populations in terms of proportions of youths assigned with specific sociodemographic characteristics. Variations in health described by specific profiles showed expected relations to sociodemographic characteristics, family structure, school achievement, medical disorders, and psychiatric disorders.This taxonomy of health profile-types appears to effectively describe a set of patterns that characterize adolescent health. The profile-types provide a unique and practical method for identifying subgroups having distinct needs for health services, with potential utility for health policy and planning. Such integrative reporting methods are critical for more effective utilization of health status instruments in health resource planning and policy development.

Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exclude patients who have multiple comorbidities. The aim of this study was to illustrate the prevalence of comorbidities among patients followed up in primary care who would have met the inclusion criteria of selected RCTs focusing on treatment of a particular condition. We used hypertension as an example of a particular chronic condition.We used an existing database of 980 patients (660 women) that was representative of a population consulting primary care family doctors and that contained information about all chronic conditions. We randomly selected 5 RCTs that focused on patients with hypertension. The inclusion and exclusion criteria used in each of the 5 RCTs were applied (1 study at a time) to the patients in our database. The patients from our data set who met the inclusion criteria of a given RCT were considered eligible for that RCT.Of the patients from our data set who were eligible for each of the RCTs, 89% to 100% had multiple chronic conditions. The mean number of chronic conditions of patients eligible for each RCT ranged from 5.5 +/- 3.3 to 11.7 +/- 5.3.Results from this study suggest that RCTs targeting a chronic medical condition such as hypertension could find that, in a sample taken from family practice, most eligible patients have comorbid conditions. Whether these patients are sampled or excluded should be reported. Research results intended to be applied in medical practice should take the complex reality of effective treatment of these patients into consideration.

As well as learning from each other's existing systems, US and UK researchers have potential for collaborative research into improving health care Almost a century ago, the UK and US health systems diverged in a dramatic way. In the United Kingdom, parliament legislated on health insurance; subsequent seminal governmental reports and actions, such as the Dawson report on primary care after the first world war and the enactment of the NHS, set the stage for the current health services system. Despite several notable attempts at reform in the United States, particularly in the early 1930s, mid-1960s, and early 1990s, the US healthcare system remains much like it was a century ago, mired in a market oriented private system with private financing. The system makes only a nod towards public responsibility, mainly in the form of guaranteed financial access for elderly people (Medicare) and a fragmented and unstable system of financing and direct service for care of poor people (Medicaid and community health centres, respectively). As a result, the United States lacks system-wide health policy making. By contrast, the NHS assumes responsibility for national health policy, the quality of care (for example, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence), and banning direct to consumer advertising of prescription medicines. The United Kingdom has a national director for primary care who, besides being responsible for policy in various aspects of primary care, is the country's official representative in international deliberations on primary care. The United States has no comparable position. Despite these enormous differences between the two health systems, there remain possibilities for two-way learning. These fall into several groups: the importance of primary care as the infrastructure of a health system; information technologies for health services; quality of services; and equity in the attainment of health of populations. World Health Organization documents on …

Objective To obtain versions of the Primary Care Assessment Tools (PCAT)-Facility version to evaluate primary care (PC) in the Spanish context, and to analyze its feasibility, reliability and validity. Methods Cultural adaptation was performed through the use of forward and backward translations into Spanish and Catalan, observations and opinions of a panel of experts, and cognitive interviews with target users (PC team managers). A pilot phase was carried out in a sample of 130 managers of PC teams in Catalonia. A post-test questionnaire was sent 4-5 months later to all 194 managers of PC teams in the Barcelona health region. Analysis of metric properties included: 1) description of items and verification of Likert assumptions, since domain scores are obtained by summing item scores; 2) reliability analysis (Cronbach's alpha coefficient, Pearson's correlation coefficient, test-retest analysis); and 3) validity analysis (expert panel, cognitive interviews, and convergent and discriminant validity). Results Substantial adaptation was required for the accessory section of the questionnaire, but less was required in PC domain measurements. Items were added to the comprehensiveness domain to reflect services usually available in Spain. The lowest Cronbach's alpha scores were found for Access (0.62) and Coordination (0.59 and 0.65), while values were >0.70 for the remaining domains. Conclusion The Spanish version of the PCAT-Facility questionnaire is now available and shows adequate reliability and validity. The Spanish PCAT version will facilitate national and international comparisons of PC and analysis of the determinants of quality of service provision. Objetivo Obtener versiones del Primary Care Assessment Tools–Facility version como herramienta de evaluación de la atención primaria (AP) para la aplicación en el contexto español, y analizar su fiabilidad y validez. Métodos Se realizó una adaptación cultural con traducciones y retrotraducciones al español y al catalán, observaciones y opiniones de un panel de expertos y entrevistas cognitivas con usuarios finales (directivos del equipo de AP). Se realizó una fase piloto con una muestra de 130 directivos de AP de Cataluña. Una versión final se envió 4-5 meses después a los 194 directivos de los equipos de la región sanitaria de Barcelona. El análisis de las propiedades métricas incluyó: 1) descripción de ítems y verificación de las asunciones de la escala Likert, porque las puntuaciones de los dominios se obtienen sumando los ítems; 2) análisis de fiabilidad (alfa de Cronbach, coeficiente de correlación de Pearson, análisis test-retest); y 3) análisis de validez (panel de expertos, entrevistas cognitivas, validez convergente y discriminante). Resultados Se requirió una importante adaptación de las secciones accesorias del cuestionario, pero no en las de los dominios de AP. Se añadieron ítems en la dimensión de globalidad. Las menores puntuaciones del alfa de Cronbach se encontraron en acceso (0,62) y coordinación (0,59 y 0,65); el resto de los dominios tuvieron valores > 0,70. Conclusión Disponemos de una versión española del PCAT - Equipo de Atención Primaria con unas adecuadas fiabilidad y validez, que facilitará comparaciones nacionales e internacionales, y el análisis de los determinantes de una provisión de servicios de calidad. Fil: Pasarín, M. Isabel. Agencia de Salud Pública de Barcelona; España. CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública; España. Sociedad Catalana de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria; España Fil: Berra, Silvina del Valle. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnologico Cordoba. Instituto de Investigaciones En Ciencias de la Salud; Argentina. CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública; España. Agència d’Informació, Avaluació i Qualitat en Salut; España Fil: González, Angelina. Agencia de Salud Pública de Barcelona; España Fil: Segura, Andreu. Institut d’Estudis de la Salut; España Fil: Tebé, Cristian. Agència d’Informació, Avaluació i Qualitat en Salut; España Fil: García Altés, Anna. Agencia de Salud Pública de Barcelona; España. CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública; España Fil: Vallverdú, Inma. Consorci Sanitari de Barcelona; España Fil: Starfield, Barbara. Johns Hopkins University; Estados Unidos

OBJECTIVES: This study investigates the consistency of factors associated with adolescent injury in separate urban and rural samples. SAMPLES: Adolescents, 11-17 years old, in public schools in urban and rural Maryland (n = 2,712). METHODS: Separate bivariate and logistic regression analyses were conducted for each sample to determine individual and environmental factors associated with major and minor injuries experienced in the previous year. RESULTS: Multivariate analyses revealed that, for both samples, the probability of a major injury was highest for boys and, among both boys and girls, for those who played several team sports. Among rural youth, other significant covariates of both major and minor injuries were a tendency to engage in risky behavior and to use alcohol. For urban youth, being white, carrying a weapon for protection, attending an unsafe school, and working for pay were also significant covariates. Interactions were important and complex. CONCLUSIONS: The consistency of predictive factors, such as multiple sports team participation and risky and aggressive behaviors in completely different physical environments, underscores the need to address the contexts of heightened injury risk that some adolescents create wherever they live by playing sports and/or behaving in an antisocial, aggressive manner. Moreover, the perception of lack of safety in schools and neighborhoods is associated with increased injury rates, suggesting the need for policy interventions to target social environments as well as behavior.

In an effort to provide medical care that is both more effective and less costly, the new variants of managed care organizations have instituted a variety of incentives and administrative controls that impact on the types and quantity of care provided to patients. Evidence suggests that the early forms of managed care, namely prepaid group practices, showed particular promise in improving the primary care delivered to children, ie, care that is accessible, person-focused in the long term, comprehensive, coordinated, and oriented toward achieving better outcomes. However, recent evidence concerning the quality of care delivered to children in the newer variants of managed care is mixed and scant; the newer organizational forms may not facilitate and may even have a negative impact on the attainment of primary care. Managed care can have a positive effect on first contact care, because it contractually defines a primary care provider and reduces use of the emergency room as a source of care. It may, however, have mixed effects on other aspects of access and use, depending on the plan's particular characteristics. Longitudinality is threatened by the disruption of prior relationships with out-of-plan providers and by the instability of both enrollees and providers in managed care plans. Children's benefits in managed care arrangements tend to include more preventive services, but access to specialty services has generally been found to be more restrictive. Coordination of care is not inherent to managed care, and many plans are no more likely to foster communication than are traditional indemnity plans. Evidence for the superior clinical quality afforded to children by new variants of managed care is lacking. Because managed care arrangements are proliferating rapidly, better studies are needed to prove or refute the contention that managed care has a significant positive effect on quality of care.

In the United States, hospital admissions for conditions sensitive to primary care are related to socioeconomic characteristics. The authors compare the prevalence of avoidable hospital admissions and their relationship to socioeconomic and primary care characteristics in Spain and the United States. A case-control analysis of the relationship between avoidable hospitalizations and socioeconomic characteristics (illiteracy, unemployment, income) and primary care characteristics (type of physician and facilities for primary care) of children's area of residence was conducted in Spain. Bivariate statistical tests and conditional logistic regression were used to test the strength of the association among the variables, and to calculate the probability of being admitted to hospital for treatment of an ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) condition. Neither socioeconomic nor primary care characteristics affected this probability, and the rate of admission for ACS conditions was lower in Spain than in the United States. The provision of universal financial access to care and the availability of a consistent and accountable primary care provider are associated with lower hospitalization rates for conditions that are preventable with good primary care.

The concept—and reality—of continuity of care crosses disciplinary and organisational boundaries. The common definitions provided here should help healthcare providers evaluate continuity more rigorously and improve communication Patients are increasingly seen by an array of providers in a wide variety of organisations and places, raising concerns about fragmentation of care. Policy reports and charters worldwide urge a concerted effort to enhance continuity,1–3 but efforts to describe the problem or formulate solutions are complicated by the lack of consensus on the definition of continuity. To add to the confusion, other terms such as continuum of care, coordination of care, discharge planning, case management, integration of services, and seamless care are often used synonymously. This synthesis was commissioned by three Canadian health services policy and research bodies. The aim was to develop a common understanding of the concept of continuity as a basis for valid and reliable measurement of practice in different settings. We searched academic and policy literature for documents in which the principal focus was continuity of patient care or continuity. We searched electronic databases (Medline, HealthSTAR, Embase, CINAHL, Current Contents, PsychINFO, AIDSLINE, CancerLit, Cochrane Library, Dissertation abstracts, Papers1st (conferences and paper abstracts), Web of Science, WorldCat) as well as web library catalogues, peer reviewed internet sites, internet search engines, and several in-house databases. The search included documents dated from 1966 to November 2001 written in English, French, or Spanish. The reviewers (RJR, JLH, RMcK) used a data abstraction form to summarise relevant documents from every health discipline, and all reviewers read key documents. We presented the results of an initial review of 314 documents to participants of a workshop on continuity held in Vancouver in June 2001. We obtained structured feedback to a discussion paper, problem based scenarios, and expert presentations. Participants validated the common themes …

To determine the validity and reliability of the version of the Primary Care Assessment Tool for adult users, adapted for Argentina (known as AR-PCAT-AE).Two cross-sectional pilot studies were conducted among people over age 17, largely through self-administered questionnaires. Items that were equivalent to the original version of the PCAT and 13 others proposed for the instruments were analyzed. The factorial validity and reliability of the scores for each dimension were studied. The validity indicators were: factors that had three or more items with a factorial load of0.35, item-total correlation0.30, and interpretation of the solution according to the theoretical model.The factorial analysis yielded nine factors that explained 57.4% of the variability. Considering the pre-established criteria for validity, two items were excluded from the dimensions of continuity and comprehensiveness and six were added to comprehensiveness and cultural competency. In the dimensions, the percentage of questions with an item-total correlation of greater than 0.30 ranged from 67% to 100% and the Chronbach's (alpha) coefficient of internal consistency ranged from 0.44 to 0.90.The validity and reliability of the AR-PCAT-AE questionnaire are adequate, maintaining high equivalence with the original version. The process presented could be adopted in other contexts to advance the evaluation of primary health care functions with quality tools.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The 2010 Affordable Care Act mandates that health insurance companies make those up to age 26 eligible for their parents’ policies. Thirty-four states previously enacted similar laws. The authors sought to examine the impact on access to care of state laws extending eligibility of parents’ insurance to young adults. METHODS: By using a difference-in-differences analysis, we examined the 2002–2004 and 2008–2009 Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System to compare 3 states enacting laws in 2005 or 2006 with 17 states that have not enacted laws on 4 outcomes: self-reported health insurance coverage, identification of a personal physician/clinician, physical exam from a physician within the past 2 years, and forgoing care in the past year due to cost. RESULTS: For each outcome there was differential improvement among states enacting laws compared with states without laws. Health insurance differentially increased 0.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], −3.8% to 4.2%), from 67.6% to 68.1% pre-post in states enacting laws and from 68.5% to 68.7% in states without. Personal physician/clinician identification differentially increased 0.9% (95% CI −3.1% to 5.0%), from 62.4% to 65.5% in states enacting laws and from 58.0% to 60.2% in states without. Recent physical exams differentially increased significantly 4.6% (95% CI, 0%–9.2%), from 77.3% to 81.2% in states enacting laws and from 76.2% to 75.5% in states without. Forgone care due to cost differentially decreased significantly 3.9% (95% CI, −0.3% to −7.5%), from 20.4% to 18.2% in states enacting laws and from 17.8% to 19.4% in states without. CONCLUSIONS: States that expanded eligibility to parents’ insurance in 2005 or 2006 experienced improvements in access to care among young adults.

Because improving health is the ultimate goal of a health care system, the measurement of health outcomes in research is a logical and important goal for the evaluation of the impact of health services. Although health can be defined in various ways, here we employ a conceptualization that has several domains including longevity, disease, comfort, perceived well being, activity, achievement, and resilience. Given that health is such a broad concept, the difficult task for outcomes research is to provide the means of measuring it. As this brief summary of current work indicates, a number of approaches have been used in recent pediatric studies. Most focus on a small subset of health concerns. However, some studies have attempted to broaden the assessment of health outcome either by using multiple health measures or developing multidimensional instruments for measuring health. Care must be taken in evaluating the usefulness of any of the instruments until sufficient data are obtained as to their reliability and validity. Further work in this area is needed, particularly with regards to multidimensional approaches, which are beginning to provide a more sensitive and comprehensive means of assessing the impact of health services.

Primary care in western Europe is delivered by general practitioners (GPs) but their role within the overall health system is poorly understood. The aim of this article is to present an overview of the characteristics of general practice in the context of health systems and to describe their variability and interrelationships. Data were obtained from two main sources: publications of official organizations and EC research projects. The characteristics of general practice are described and analysed with regard to three features: mode of payment, gatekeeper function and practice organization and workload. Despite their focus on general practice as the cornerstone of the health system, western European countries differ considerably in the major characteristics of primary care. There is variability in the ratio of GPs to population and in the extent to which patients relate to individual physicians. Although all countries have universal health insurance, the mode of payment of GPs differs. In some countries, the gatekeeper function of general practice is more highly developed and the use of specialist services varies accordingly. Practice characteristics such as workload, length of consultation, ordering of tests and reappointments also vary with differences in payment and gatekeeping arrangements. In particular, fee-for-service was associated with weaker physician-patient relationships, reduced attractiveness of general practice, more home visiting and longer consultations. Strong gatekeeping arrangements are not incompatible with high public satisfaction and are associated with lower visit rates. However, strong gatekeeping is not characteristic of fee-for-service arrangements. These findings suggest a need for more concerted research that could inform policy decisions concerning primary care in the USA as well as in Europe.

Multimorbidity is increasing in frequency. It can be quantitatively measured and is a major correlate of high use of health services resources of all types, especially over time. The ACG System for characterizing multimorbidity is the only widely used method that is based on combinations of different TYPES of diagnoses over time, rather than the presence or absence of particular conditions or numbers of conditions. It incorporates administrative data (as from claims forms or medical records) on all types of encounters and is not limited to diagnoses captured during hospitalizations or other places of encounter. It can be employed in any one or combination of analytic models, and can incorporate medication use if desired. It is being used in clinical care, management of health services resources, in health services research to control for degree of morbidity, and in understanding morbidity patterns over time. In addition to its research uses, it is being employed in many countries in various applications as a policy to better understand health needs of populations and tailor health services resources to health needs.

China has recently placed increased emphasis on the provision of primary healthcare services through health sector reform, in response to inequitably distributed health services. With increasing funding for community level facilities, now is an opportune time to assess the quality of primary care delivery and identify areas in need of further improvement. A mixed methodology approach was adopted for this study. Quantitative data were collected using the Primary Care Assessment Tool-Chinese version (C-PCAT), a questionnaire previously adapted for use in China to assess the quality of care at each health facility, based on clients' experiences. In addition, qualitative data were gathered through eight semi-structured interviews exploring perceptions of primary care with health directors and a policy maker to place this issue in the context of health sector reform. The study found that patients attending community health and sub-community health centres are more likely to report better experiences with primary care attributes than patients attending hospital facilities. Generally low scores for community orientation, family centredness and coordination in all types of health facility indicate an urgent need for improvement in these areas. Healthcare directors and policy makers perceived the need for greater coordination between levels of health providers, better financial reimbursement, more formal government contracts and recognition/higher status for staff at the community level and more appropriate undergraduate and postgraduate training.

This discussion paper reflects on the pay-for-performance system in UK general practice - the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) - from an international viewpoint. The QOF intends to bring the best scientific evidence to bear on primary care practice. However, the QOF and patient-centred medicine are often at odds. Inadequacies and commercial bias in the creation of evidence make the scientific basis of the QOF questionable. The framework for the QOF does not align well with the scope of primary care, making its basis as a tool for quality measurement questionable. The extent of impact of the QOF on health outcomes and on equity of health outcomes needs examination. Attention to resolution of patients' problems is an important aim of quality improvement activities. Alternative modes of improving patient care may be better than the QOF.

Background The Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT) is an interesting set of tools for primary care research. A very short version could inform policy makers about consumer experiences with primary care (PC) through health surveys. This work aimed to investigate the validity and reliability of a selection of items from the child short edition (CS) of the PCAT. Methods A 24 item questionnaire permitted the identification of a regular source of care and the assessment of the key attributes of first contact, ongoing care over time, coordination, services available and services received (comprehensiveness), and cultural competence. Structural validity, reliability, and construct validity were assessed using responses from 2,200 parents of a representative sample of the population aged 0 to 14 years in Catalonia (Spain) who participated in the 2006 Health Survey. Structural validity was analyzed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was assessed using linear regression analysis between PC experience scores and a measure of overall user satisfaction with healthcare services. Results A total of 2,095 (95.2%) parents provided useable responses on PC. After Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), the best fitting model was a 5-factor model in which the original dimensions of first contact and ongoing care were collapsed into one. The CFA also showed a second order factor onto which all domains except services available loaded (root mean square error of approximation = 0.000; comparative fit index = 1.00). Cronbach's alpha values for one of the original scales (first-contact) was poor (alpha < 0.50), but improved using the modified factor structure (alpha > 0.70). Scores on the scales were correlated with satisfaction with healthcare services (p < 0.01), thereby providing some preliminary evidence of construct validity. Conclusions This very short questionnaire obtained from the PCAT-CE yields information about five attributes of PC and a summary score. It has shown evidence of validity and reliability for judgments about experiences with primary care overall. If space on surveys is at a premium, the instrument could be useful as a measure of PC experiences.

Factors related to the amount of health care used by 5- to 11-year-old children in a health maintenance organization (HMO) were investigated using a comprehensive multivariate model that assessed the contribution of child health need, mental health, and social functioning; maternal mental health, social support and health care utilization; and family functioning and life events. Mothers reported on the 450 participating children. Health care visits for a two-year retrospective period were obtained from the computerized encounter system. Child health need and maternal patterns of health care use were powerful predictors of the overall amount of health care used, and these factors discriminated high users from low users of care. Family conflict was associated with a higher volume of care, while children's depressive symptoms and non-white race were related to lower use. Maternal social support, mental health, and life events were not predictive of use in either full multivariate model. Enabling factors were held relatively constant by participation of all families in a prepaid HMO. The multiple regression model explained 33% of the variance in use, slightly more than in previous studies of children's health care use. When included in a comprehensive analysis, child and family psychosocial characteristics help to explain children's health care use beyond what is possible using simple health and illness variables. The implications of these findings in the development of further research and to the practice of routine pediatric care are discussed.

Both poverty and other factors associated with race are related to child health. However, the mechanisms of these relationships have not been adequately specified. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of the social environment to child health status in black and white children and further, to explore whether the patterns of the effects of social class were different by race. This study provides further evidence that the social environment is strongly associated with child health status. Several risk factors are similar for both white and black children: mothers who view their own health as fair or poor are much more likely to rate their children in poor health. The presence of childhood chronic medical conditions is independently associated with poor health status regardless of race. However, the relative importance of several social risks for poor health status differs between white and black children. Specifically, while low family income is a consistent risk factor for poor health among white children, low income alone is not a risk factor for black children. Among black children,other social risks that are associated with poverty, such as low maternal education and a mother's perception of her own health as poor, increased the risk for poorer health in the child.