Back

Outcome Dimensions and Measurement Approaches for Evaluating the Impact of China's Family Doctor Contract Services: A Scoping Review Protocol

Wang, Y.; Jin, H.; Yu, D.

2024-09-22 primary care research
10.1101/2024.09.20.24314035 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundFamily doctor contract services (FDCS) in mainland China are designed to foster long-term relationships between family doctors and residents, promoting primary care delivery through teamwork. By 2035, coverage is expected to exceed 75%. However, the evaluation domains and measurement approaches used to assess these services remain fragmented and lack a consensus-based standard. This scoping review aims to systematically map the full spectrum of evaluation domains and analyze the measurement approaches used to evaluate FDCS in mainland China. MethodsConducted in accordance with JBI methodology, we will search CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, and Web of Science for literature published since 2006. Sources will include policy documents, quantitative studies, and qualitative studies. A two-tier data extraction strategy will be employed to balance breadth and depth. We will categorize all identified evaluation domains using the Donabedian (Structure, Process, Outcome) framework, with outcome-related domains further mapped to the Quintuple Aim to analyze value orientation. Results will be synthesized through a three-stage visualization strategy: assessing the macro-alignment of evaluation domains (Sankey Diagram 1), analyzing the value orientation of outcomes against the Quintuple Aim (Sankey Diagram 2), and critically appraising the quality of measurement tools (Instrument Inventory Table). DiscussionThis review will provide the first comprehensive map of the FDCS evaluation ecosystem. It will objectively identify alignments and gaps between policy mandates (intended evaluation domains), research practices (actual measurement approaches), and stakeholder perspectives. By mapping this landscape, the review aims to provide a clear evidence base for future evaluations and the development of a consensus-based core outcome set. Systematic review registrationRegistered in OSF on September 20, 2024 (osf.io/z3eju)

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.