Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Facilitators and barriers to implement the family doctor contracting services in China: findings from a qualitative study
  1. Shasha Yuan,
  2. Fang Wang,
  3. Xi Li,
  4. Meng Jia,
  5. Miaomiao Tian
  1. Centre for Health System and Policy, Institute of Medical Information & Library, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
  1. Correspondence to Professor Fang Wang; wang.fang{at}imicams.ac.cn; 359959291{at}qq.com

Abstract

Objective To identify the facilitators and barriers to implement family doctor contracting services in China by using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to shed new light on establishing family doctor systems in developing countries.

Design A qualitative study conducted from June to August 2017 using semistructured interview guides for focus group discussions (FGDs) and individual interviews. CFIR was used to guide data coding, data analysis and reporting of findings.

Setting 19 primary health institutions in nine provinces purposively selected from the eastern, middle and western areas of China.

Participants From the nine sampled provinces in China, 62 policy makers from health related departments at the province, city and county/district levels participated in 9 FGDs; 19 leaders of primary health institutions participated in individual interviews; and 48 family doctor team members participated in 15 FGDs.

Results Based on CFIR constructs, notable facilitators included national reform involving both top-down and bottom-up policy making (Intervention); support from essential public health funds, fiscal subsidies and health insurance (Outer setting); extra performance-based payments for family doctor teams based on evaluation (Inner setting); and positive engagement of health administrators (Process). Notable barriers included a lack of essential matching mechanisms at national level (Intervention); distrust in the quality of primary care, a lack of government subsidies and health insurance reimbursement and performance ceiling policy (Outer setting); the low competency of family doctors and weak influence of evaluations on performance-based salary (Inner setting); and misunderstandings about family doctor contracting services (Process).

Conclusions The national design with essential features including financing, incentive mechanisms and multidepartment cooperation, was vital for implementing family doctor contracting services in China. More attention should be paid to the quality of primary care and competency of family doctors. All stakeholders must be informed, be involved and participate before and during the process.

  • family doctor system
  • primary care
  • Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
  • qualitative research
  • contracting services

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors SY collected, processed and analysed the data, and wrote and finalised the manuscript. FW designed the study and provided advice on the analysis framework. XL, MJ and MT actively participated in data collection and analysis, and modification of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding This work was supported by CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS) [2016-I2M-3-018].

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval This study was approved by the Institute of Medical Information & Library Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (Ref. No. IMICAMS/03/19/HREC).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement No data are available.