Skip to main content

Table 3 Patient major care pathways, their medical expenditure and delays in the three models of hospital and TB linkages in China

From: Comparing patient care seeking pathways in three models of hospital and TB programme collaboration in China

Pathway

The dispensary model

The specialist model

The integrated model

 

Cases, N (%)

Average medical expenditure x ¯ (RMB)

Days of diagnosis delay x ¯ (M)

Days of treatment delay x ¯ (M)

Cases, N (%)

Average medical expenditure x ¯ (RMB)

Days of diagnosis delay x ¯ (M)

Days of treatment delay x ¯ (M)

Cases, N (%)

Average medical expenditure x ¯ (RMB)

Days of diagnosis delay x ¯ (M)

Days of treatment delay x ¯ (M)

1.CTD/TDH

10 (10)

3663

11 (2)

5 (1)

1 (1)

2700

11

4

29 (28)

2296

3 (1)

2 (1)

2.PCF → CTD/TDH

12 (12)

3036

102 (30)

6 (1)

6 (7)

2353

25 (16)

0 (0)

16 (16)

2189

6 (2)

1 (1)

3.Hospital → CTD/TDH

52 (52)

5055

15 (2)

9 (1)

22 (24)

10029

8 (1)

20 (15)

46 (45)

2512

12 (2)

3 (1)

4.PCF → Hospital → CTD/TDH

26 (26)

4972

53 (10)

25 (8)

23 (26)

11373

52 (20)

32 (8)

12 (12)

5327

33 (25)

3 (1)

5.Specilaist Hospital*

0

   

20(22)

9547

2 (1)

-

0

   

6.PCF → Specialist Hospital*

0

   

18 (20)

19798

29 (9)

-

0

   

Total

100

4652

35 (4)

12 (1)

90

11626a

23 (6)

23 (0)

103

2729

11 (1)b

2 (1)c

  1. PCF: Primary care facilities, including village doctor clinics and community health centres or township hospitals.
  2. CTD: county TB dispensaries; TDH: TB designated hospitals.
  3. Hospital: here including general hospitals and TB special hospital, but excluding TB designated hospitals.
  4. * For patients finished their treatment in the specialist hospitals, including pathways from general hospital to the TB special hospital and from primary care facilities to general hospital, then to the TB special hospital.
  5. a Kruskal-Wallis H test showed that significant difference was found among three models (χ2 = 83.268, P<0.001). The specialist model was significantly higher than the dispensary model (P<0.001), and the dispensary model was significantly higher than the integrated model (P = 0.034).
  6. b Kruskal-Wallis H test showed that significant difference was found among three models (χ2 = 17.042, P<0.001).. The integrated model was significantly shorter than the dispensary model (P = 0.001) and the specialist model (P = 0.002).
  7. c Kruskal-Wallis H test showed that significant difference was found among three models (χ2 = 9.283, P<0.001). The integrated model was significantly shorter than the dispensary model (P = 0.024) and the specialist model (P = 0.005).