Cargando…

Evaluation of primary health care by users during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the primary health care (PHC) attributes and associated factors during the COVID-19 pandemic using the perspective of users. METHODS: This cross-sectional, quantitative study included 422 PHC users from 96 Family Health Teams in a city in Brazil. The assessment used the Primar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Celino, Suely Deysny de Matos, de Albuquerque Filho, Nailton José Brandão, Gomes, Monalisa da Nóbrega Cesarino, Costa, Gabriela Maria Cavalcanti, de Mendonça, Ana Elza Oliveira
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10516436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37738255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292039
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the primary health care (PHC) attributes and associated factors during the COVID-19 pandemic using the perspective of users. METHODS: This cross-sectional, quantitative study included 422 PHC users from 96 Family Health Teams in a city in Brazil. The assessment used the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCATool) and a structured questionnaire on the sociodemographic and epidemiological characteristics of users and basic health units (BHU). The Person’s chi-square test was used to analyze the association between high overall scores in PCATool and characteristics of users and BHU. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) with a 95% confidence interval were also calculated. Poisson regression and Rao Scott’s Chi-square test were used to estimate crude PR. RESULTS: Most users were aged 30 to 39 years (26.3%), women (75.4%), registered at the BHU for over ten years (59.5%), and had incomplete secondary education (30.6%). The mean of PHC essential attributes and overall scores were low (6.10 ± 0.81 and 5.78 ± 0.77, respectively). "First-contact care–use" received the highest score (9.22 ± 1.62), while "first-contact care–accessibility" received the lowest (2.82 ± 0.90). High overall scores were associated with an average employment time of professionals (doctors and nurses) at the BHU (PR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.17–1.48; p < 0.001) and lower educational level of users (PR = 1.71; 95% CI 1.54–1.90; p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: "First-contact care–use" was the best evaluated, while "first-contact care–accessibility" was the worst. High scores were associated with a lower educational level of users and BHU with more experienced professionals.