MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104702014 · doi:10.1093/heapol/czi037

Comparative quality of private and public health services in rural Vietnam

2005· article· en· W2104702014 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tuan Tran, Van Thi Mai Dung, I. S. Neu, Michael J. Dibley

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Policy and Planning · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionUniversity of SydneyUniversity of Newcastle AustraliaEmory UniversityRockefeller Foundation
KeywordsPrivate sectorGovernment (linguistics)BusinessPopulationHealth careQuarter (Canadian coin)Public sectorPublic healthRural areaQuality (philosophy)Environmental healthFamily medicineMedicineEconomic growthNursingGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Private health care services were officially recognized in Vietnam in 1989, and for the last 15 years have competed with the public health system in providing primary curative care and pharmaceutical sales to rural populations. However, the quality of these private and public health care services has not been evaluated and compared. METHODS: A community-based survey was conducted in 30 of the 160 communes in Hung Yen, which were selected by probability proportional to population size (PPS) sampling. All commune health centres (CHCs) and private health care providers in the selected communes were surveyed on human resources, services provided, availability of medical equipment and pharmaceuticals, knowledge and clinical performance for acute and chronic problems. Patient satisfaction and cost of care associated with recent illness were measured using a random household survey covering 30 households from each of the selected communes. RESULTS: There were 11.5 private providers per 10,000 population, compared with 6.7 public providers per 10,000. A quarter of private providers were employees of the public health sector. Less than 20% of the private providers had registered their practice with the government system. Eleven per cent (26/234) had no professional qualifications. Fifty-eight per cent (135/234) provided treatment as well as selling medications. Public sector infrastructure was superior to that of the private providers. The quality of services provided by public providers was poor but significantly better than that of private providers. Patient satisfaction and costs of care were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Private providers are successfully competing with the public health centre system in rural areas but not because they provide cheaper or better services. The quality of private health care services is not controlled and is significantly poorer than public services. Current practice in both systems falls below the national standard, especially for the management of chronic health problems. The low quality of health care services at a community level may help explain the previously observed phenomena of high levels of self-medicating, low utilization of commune health centres and over-utilization of tertiary health care facilities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.169
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations101
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Policy and PlanningSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207