A qualitative study of two management models of community health centres in two Chinese megacities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two common public models of community health centres (CHCs) exist in China, i.e. the 'government-owned and government-managed' CHCs (G-CHCs) and the 'government-owned and hospital-managed' CHCs (H-CHCs). Shanghai and Shenzhen are two Chinese megacities that lead the primary care development on the G-CHC and H-CHC models, respectively. Using a qualitative case study design, this study compares the management of the G-CHC model in Shanghai and H-CHC model in Shenzhen, through perspectives of a range of health providers. In each city, we randomly selected four CHCs and in total conducted 31 interviews with officers from the municipal health authorities, directors, GPs, nurses and public health doctors of the CHCs. When comparing with the H-CHC model in Shenzhen, the G-CHC model in Shanghai, a model with more simplified but accountable structure tended to present better management conditions, in terms of financial transparency, recruitment autonomy, community health workforce development (CHC staffing and family medicine training), funding and priority for public health. However, regardless of the models, staff retention remained a challenge. While our study tends to suggest that the G-CHC model in Shanghai presents better management conditions, future study can test whether and to what extent the model itself can lead to such differences.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".