doi:10.1093/heapol/czi037 Advance Access Published on 2 August 2005 Comparative quality of private and public health services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".