BackgroundIn China, most people tend to use hospitals rather than health centers for their primary care generally due to the perception that quality of care provided in the hospital setting is superior to that provided at the health centers. No studies have been conducted in China to compare the quality of primary care provided at different health care settings. The purpose of this study is to compare the quality of primary care provided in different types of health care facilities in China.MethodsA cross-sectional survey with patients was conducted in Guangdong province of China, using the validated Chinese Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT). ANOVA was performed to compare the overall and 10 domains of primary care quality for patients in tertiary, secondary, and primary health care settings. Multivariate analyses were used to assess the association between types of facility and quality of primary care attributes while controlling for sociodemographic and health care characteristics.ResultsThe final number of respondents was 864 including 161 from county hospitals, 190 from rural community health centers (CHCs), 164 from tertiary hospitals, 80 from secondary hospitals, and 269 from urban CHCs. Type of health care facilities was significantly associated with total PCAT score and domain scores. CHC was associated with higher total PCAT score and scores for first contact-access, ongoing care, comprehensiveness-services available, and community orientation than secondary and/or tertiary hospitals, after controlling for patients’ demographic and health characteristics. Higher PCAT score was associated with greater satisfaction with primary care received. CHC patients were more likely to report satisfactory experiences compared to patients from secondary and tertiary facilities.ConclusionsThe study demonstrated that CHCs provided better quality primary care when compared with secondary and tertiary health care facilities, justifying CHCs as a model of primary care delivery.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1604-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine racial and socioeconomic disparities in access to primary care among people with chronic conditions. Methods: Data for this study were taken from the household component of the 2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The analysis primarily focused on adults >18 years old. Logistic regressions were conducted among people with chronic conditions to compare primary care attributes between each minority group and their non-Hispanic white counterparts and between individuals with high, above average, or below average socioeconomic status and their low socioeconomic status counterparts, controlling for other individual factors.Results: Racial disparities were found in having usual source of care (USC), USC provider type, and USC location. However, no disparities were found in ease of contacting or getting to USC as well as the services received. Furthermore, very limited socioeconomic disparities were found after controlling for other individual characteristics, in particular race and insurance status.