Primary CareNCT01422031
Study on Primary Care Health Service Utilization in Hong Kong
An observational study of Primary Care and Health Services Utilization, run by The University of Hong Kong at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
The aim of this study was to find out the utilization rate and pattern of primary health care services, and the process and outcomes of primary care consultations of the general population in Hong Kong, and whether having a family doctor would make any difference. The study objectives were to determine 1. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Primary Care, Health Services Utilization, Family Practice
- How many people
- 3,148 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- Sep 2007to Aug 2008
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: 5174 eligible households were contacted by telephone but 1532 refused to be interviewed and 494 did not complete the interview. 3148 (60.8%) subjects, with 1616 and 1532 in the first and second phases, respectively, completed the cross-sectional survey. 1131 people (480 by additional telephone sampling) were invited to the longitudinal study but only 708 eventually agreed to take part and 327 returned the diaries (all by completion). 319 subjects had complete cross-sectional and longitudinal data for the final analysis.
Who may be able to join
- Written consent to study
Who cannot join
- Non-residential numbers
- Inability to communicate in Cantonese, Putonghua or English
- Refusal to telephone interview
- No contact after 5 attempts
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Utilization Pattern of Primary Health Care Services in Hong Kong - Does Having a Family Doctor Make Any Difference?
The aim of this study was to find out the utilization rate and pattern of primary health care services, and the process and outcomes of primary care consultations of the general population in Hong Kong, and whether having a family doctor would make any difference.
The study objectives were to determine
- the rates and pattern of utilization of different primary health care services and self-care
- Patient self-reported outcomes (global rating on change in health, satisfaction and patient enablement) of primary care consultations;
- the process of care in consultations including drug and non-drug managements, investigations, preventive care and referrals;
- the effect of having a regular family doctor on service utilization rate and pattern, health promotion practice, and process and outcomes of primary care consultations.
Read the detailed description
Study Design: A Cross-sectional general population survey and a longitudinal study (12-weeks follow up)
Method: Two phases, corresponding to Summer and Winter, respectively, of cross-sectional telephone survey on the Hong Kong general population using a structured questionnaire to collect information on the choice primary care doctors, illness rates, primary care service utilization rates and self-reported process and outcomes of consultations. A longitudinal study for 12 weeks was carried out on a sub-sample of the cross-sectional study subjects to collect data to cross-validate cross-sectional data. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to determine whether there was any difference in service utilization rates, process and outcomes among people using different types of primary care doctors.
- Conditions
- Primary Care, Health Services Utilization, Family Practice
- Keywords
- Primary care, Family doctor, Consultation, utilization, Non-drug managements, Patient enablement index
- Medical subject headings
- Patient Acceptance of Health Care
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Regular Family Doctor (RFD) | People had a regular primary care doctor who is a family doctor | |
| Regular not Family doctor (RnFD) | People had a regular primary care doctor who is not a family doctor | |
| Not regular doctor (NRD) | People had no regular primary care doctor |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Primary care doctor choice group
Measured: baseline
Monthly utilization rate
Measured: Baseline
Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI)
Measured: Baseline
Rates of non-drug managements
Measured: Baseline
Secondary outcomes (6)
Doctor shopping rate
Measured: Baseline
Self-medication rates during the last episode of illness
Measured: Baseline
Prescribing rate during last episode of illness
Measured: Baseline
Prevalence of preventive care
Measured: Baseline
Self-perceived health score
Measured: Baseline
Patient satisfaction
Measured: Baseline
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Aug 2011 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2007
- Primary completionAug 2008
- Study completionAug 2008
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Primary CareStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by The University of Hong KongThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 3,148 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Hong Kong
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Cindy L.K. LAM, The University of Hong Kong
- Investigators
- Cindy L.K. Lam, MD, Principal investigator, Family Medicine Unit, Faculty of Medicine, HKU
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01422031
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HKCTR-366
- Status last verified
- Jan 2015
- First submitted
- 8 Aug 2011
- Last updated
- 26 Jan 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Lam CL, Leung GM, Mercer SW, Fong DY, Lee A, Lam TP, Lo YT. Utilisation patterns of primary health care services in Hong Kong: does having a family doctor make any difference? Hong Kong Med J. 2011 Jun;17(3 Suppl 3):28-32. No abstract available.
PubMed 21673357Lam CL, Yu EY, Lo YY, Wong CK, Mercer SM, Fong DY, Lee A, Lam TP, Leung GM. Having a Family Doctor is Associated with Some Better Patient-Reported Outcomes of Primary Care Consultations. Front Med (Lausanne). 2014 Sep 15;1:29. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2014.00029. eCollection 2014.
PubMed 25593904Fung CS, Wong CK, Fong DY, Lee A, Lam CL. Having a family doctor was associated with lower utilization of hospital-based health services. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Jan 28;15:42. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0705-7.
PubMed 25627936
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Jan 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Utilization Pattern of Primary Health Care Services in Hong Kong - Does Having a Family Doctor Make Any Difference?
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01422031
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- HKCTR-366
- Conditions
- Primary Care, Health Services Utilization, Family Practice
- Keywords
- Primary care, Family doctor, Consultation, utilization, Non-drug managements, Patient enablement index
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 3,148 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Hong KongUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Food and Health Bureau, Hong Kong
- Study start
- Sep 2007
- Primary completion
- Aug 2008 (actual)
- Study completion
- Aug 2008 (actual)
- First posted
- 23 Aug 2011 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of this study was to find out the utilization rate and pattern of primary health care services, and the process and outcomes of primary care consultations of the general population in Hong Kong, and whether having a family doctor would make any difference.
The study objectives were to determine
- the rates and pattern of utilization of different primary health care services and self-care
- Patient self-reported outcomes (global rating on change in health, satisfaction and patient enablement) of primary care consultations;
- the process of care in consultations including drug and non-drug managements, investigations, preventive care and referrals;
- the effect of having a regular family doctor on service utilization rate and pattern, health promotion practice, and process and outcomes of primary care consultations.
Detailed description
Study Design: A Cross-sectional general population survey and a longitudinal study (12-weeks follow up)
Method: Two phases, corresponding to Summer and Winter, respectively, of cross-sectional telephone survey on the Hong Kong general population using a structured questionnaire to collect information on the choice primary care doctors, illness rates, primary care service utilization rates and self-reported process and outcomes of consultations. A longitudinal study for 12 weeks was carried out on a sub-sample of the cross-sectional study subjects to collect data to cross-validate cross-sectional data. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to determine whether there was any difference in service utilization rates, process and outcomes among people using different types of primary care doctors.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Regular Family Doctor (RFD) | – | –People had a regular primary care doctor who is a family doctor |
| Regular not Family doctor (RnFD) | – | –People had a regular primary care doctor who is not a family doctor |
| Not regular doctor (NRD) | – | –People had no regular primary care doctor |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- 5174 eligible households were contacted by telephone but 1532 refused to be interviewed and 494 did not complete the interview. 3148 (60.8%) subjects, with 1616 and 1532 in the first and second phases, respectively, completed the cross-sectional survey. 1131 people (480 by additional telephone sampling) were invited to the longitudinal study but only 708 eventually agreed to take part and 327 returned the diaries (all by completion). 319 subjects had complete cross-sectional and longitudinal data for the final analysis.
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Written consent to study
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Non-residential numbers
- Inability to communicate in Cantonese, Putonghua or English
- Refusal to telephone interview
- No contact after 5 attempts
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Primary care doctor choice group
Time frame: baseline
Monthly utilization rate
Time frame: Baseline
Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI)
Time frame: Baseline
Rates of non-drug managements
Time frame: Baseline
6 secondary outcomes
Doctor shopping rate
Time frame: Baseline
Self-medication rates during the last episode of illness
Time frame: Baseline
Prescribing rate during last episode of illness
Time frame: Baseline
Prevalence of preventive care
Time frame: Baseline
Self-perceived health score
Time frame: Baseline
Patient satisfaction
Time frame: Baseline
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Jan 2015.
- Results publication: PubMed 21673357Lam CL, Leung GM, Mercer SW, Fong DY, Lee A, Lam TP, Lo YT. Utilisation patterns of primary health care services in Hong Kong: does having a family doctor make any difference? Hong Kong Med J. 2011 Jun;17(3 Suppl 3):28-32. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 25593904Lam CL, Yu EY, Lo YY, Wong CK, Mercer SM, Fong DY, Lee A, Lam TP, Leung GM. Having a Family Doctor is Associated with Some Better Patient-Reported Outcomes of Primary Care Consultations. Front Med (Lausanne). 2014 Sep 15;1:29. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2014.00029. eCollection 2014.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 25627936Fung CS, Wong CK, Fong DY, Lee A, Lam CL. Having a family doctor was associated with lower utilization of hospital-based health services. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Jan 28;15:42. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0705-7.
Related trials for Primary Care
Active, not recruiting
Digital Reinforcement of Motivational Interviewing Micro-Skills Among Primary Care Healthcare Professionals
Hypertension (Without Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus)
Not yet recruiting
Impact of Pharmacotherapy Optimization in Polymedicated Lebanese Older Adults in Primary Health Care Centers
Older Adults (65 Years and Older), Polypharmacy (People Under Treatment With 5 or More Drugs)
RecruitingObservational study
Pivotal Trial of an Automated AI-based System for Early Diagnosis and Prediction of Late Age-related Macular Degeneration
Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
Recruiting
Technology-Based Intervention Pilot Testing
Dementia, Elder Abuse
RecruitingPhase 2
At-Home Cancer Directed Therapy Versus in Clinic for the Treatment of Patients With Advanced Cancer
Advanced Anal Carcinoma, Advanced Biliary Tract Carcinoma
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Cindy L.K. Lam, MD principal investigator
Family Medicine Unit, Faculty of Medicine, HKU
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Primary Care and Health Services Utilization, run by The University of Hong Kong at 1 site in China.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Jan 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in China. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Primary care doctor choice group (time frame: baseline). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01422031, which also lists 3 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Jan 2015.