Primary Care Service Usage According to the Type of Family Health Centers: Analysis of the Turkish Data of the QUALICOPC Study

Creative Commons License

Tuzun S., Akman M., Dabak R., SARGIN M., ÜNLÜOĞLU İ., Kalaca S.

HASEKI TIP BULTENI-MEDICAL BULLETIN OF HASEKI, cilt.61, sa.2, ss.72-80, 2023 (ESCI) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 61 Sayı: 2
  • Basım Tarihi: 2023
  • Doi Numarası: 10.4274/haseki.galenos.2023.8757
  • Dergi Adı: HASEKI TIP BULTENI-MEDICAL BULLETIN OF HASEKI
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, EMBASE, Directory of Open Access Journals, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.72-80
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Family practices, organization and administration, comprehensive healthcare, continuity of care, health services administration, TURKEY
  • Marmara Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Aim: Family health centers (FHCs) are reimbursed for their current expenditures based on a classification of four clusters in Turkey. This study compared the coordination, comprehensiveness, continuity, accessibility, and the first contact of care among different reimbursement FHC groups.Methods: The data were obtained from the Turkish data of the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe study. Data was collected in provinces from six geographical regions. Physicians and patients from Classes A and B FHCs were called the first group, and others were called the second group.Results: A total of 296 physicians and 2623 patients were enrolled. According to the reimbursement groups, 593 (22.6%) patients received services from the first group and 2012 (77.4%) patients from the second group. The first contact with care and the admission frequency of 3 or more in the last six months were higher in the first group (respectively, 99.2% vs. 97.7%, p=0.027; 55.4% vs. 49.6%, p=0.015).Conclusion: The reimbursement classification did not make a difference in coordination, comprehensive care, continuity, accessibility, and being the first contact of care. Therefore, the current classification does not contribute to improving the quality of primary care in terms of service provision.