Development and validation of the Vietnamese primary care assessment tool
Development and validation of the Vietnamese primary care assessment tool
Nguyen Thi Hoa 0 1 2
Nguyen Minh Tam 1 2
Wim Peersman 1
Anselme Derese 0 1
Jeffrey F. Markuns 1
0 Department of Family Medicine and Primary Healthcare, Ghent University , Ghent, Belgium, 3 Social and Community Work , Odisee University College , Brussels, Belgium, 4 Global Health Collaborative , Department of Family Medicine, Boston University , Boston, Massachusetts , United States of America
1 Editor: Christophe Leroyer, Universite de Bretagne Occidentale , FRANCE
2 Department of Family Medicine, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University , Hue , Vietnam
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information
Funding: This work was supported by the Atlantic
Philanthropies [14613, 21627] and the VLIR
InterUniversity Cooperation Programme VLIR-IUC with
Hue University [ZIUC2014AP026,
ZIUC2015AP026, ZIUC2016AP026]. The funders
had no role in study design, data collection and
analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the
past two years.
The Vietnamese adult expanded consumer version of the PCAT (VN PCAT-AE) is an
instrument for evaluation of primary care in Vietnam with 70 items comprising six scales
representing four core primary care domains, and three additional scales representing three
derivative domains. Sixteen other items from the original tool were not included in the final
instrument, due to problems with missing values, floor or ceiling effects, and item-total
correlations. All the retained scales have a Cronbach's alpha above 0.70 except for the subscale
of Family Centeredness.
The VN PCAT-AE demonstrates adequate internal consistency and validity to be used as
an effective tool for measuring the quality of primary care in Vietnam from the consumer
perspective. Additional work in the future to optimize valid measurement in all domains
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
consistent with the original version of the tool may be helpful as the primary care system in
Vietnam further develops.
Quality primary care is an essential component of strong health care systems with good health
]. In 1978 at Alma Ata, the World Health Organization (WHO) promoted
ªprimary careº as essential for all health systems. Research from industrialized countries has
shown that stronger primary care systems are associated with lower costs and better
population health outcomes [1±5]. Studies in the United States and in low- and middle-income
countries have also suggested that greater primary care availability is correlated with improved
health and a decrease in utilization of high cost health services [6±8]. In 2008, the World
Health Organization reiterated their call for all countries to strengthen primary care systems
and use primary care as a model to provide care that is equitable and efficient [9, 10].
Primary care in Vietnam is mainly provided by a network of more than 11,000 commune
health care centers that provide basic and essential health services to people in every
commune. A commune health center (CHC) is usually staffed with a general doctor and some
ancillary staff such as a midwife, nurse, assistant doctor of traditional medicine or pharmacist.
This network is supplemented by additional outpatient ªpolyclinicsº (staffed by multiple
primary care and subspecialist physicians) and district hospitals. People with public health
insurance may seek health care services at their registered primary health facility, normally their
local commune health center, and can then be referred to a higher level if needed such as
district, provincial or central hospitals. Although those with public health insurance generally
have free or low-cost access to primary care services through the CHCs, many people believe
the quality to be poor and so bypass their CHC at the grassroots level and instead choose to
self-pay for services directly at private clinics or hospitals. This pattern of care-seeking
behavior has led to serious overcrowding in most upper level referral hospitals, despite potential
compromises in quality due to extensive waiting times and short consultations under extreme
time pressure. As a result, Vietnam has begun a variety of interventions since 2013 to improve
the primary care system [
]. Correspondingly, there is now a great need for valid tools to
measure the quality of primary care and assist in evaluating these interventions and their
There are a variety of tools for measuring elements of primary care, however, the Primary
Care Assessment Tool (PCAT) developed by Barbara Starfield at the Johns Hopkins Primary
Care Policy Center focuses on the core principles of primary care and is one of the few tools
designed to assess both structural and process features of primary care [
]. The PCAT
family of instruments includes four surveys: the adult consumer-client survey (PCAT-AE), the
child consumer-client survey (PCAT-CE), a provider survey and a facility survey. The
PCAT-AE is designed to collect information from consumers regarding their experience using
health care resources, and it may be used to survey target populations .
The PCAT gauges the organizational resources and processes of grassroots health care by
evaluating four essential features or core domains of primary care: first contact care (access),
longitudinality (continuity), comprehensiveness and coordination. Three other derivative
domains are also included in the PCAT: family-centered care, community-oriented care and
culturally competent care [
]. Each domain is represented by one or two small scales. Six
scales represent the four core domains of primary care: first contact, longitudinal care,
2 / 16
coordination of services (coordination domain), comprehensive services available and
comprehensive services provided (comprehensiveness domain). Three additional scales represent
the three ancillary domains of family centeredness, community orientation and cultural
competence. Thus, the original PCAT-AE consists of nine scales representing seven domains [
The PCAT-AE has been used and validated in multiple countries and is perhaps one of the
most widely studied and applied tools for measuring quality of primary care across the globe
[16±19]. Given the proven utility of the tool worldwide, we presumed it to be a useful tool to
gauge the quality of primary care as an emerging component of the healthcare system in
Vietnam. Although the PCAT-AE has been validated in a variety of countries, specificities of local
health systems and patients' cultural understanding of key concepts may make some elements
of the tool less useful or valid. In this study, we developed the Vietnamese Primary Care
Assessment Tool based on the consumer-client version of the adult expanded PCAT (VN
PCAT-AE) and examined its internal consistency and validity.
Translation and adaptation of the PCAT for Vietnam
A toolkit developed by the Johns Hopkins Primary Care Policy Center for use of the PCAT in
international settings contains a set of recommended steps for valid linguistic and cultural
translation of the tool (available upon request from the Center). In our initial adaptation of the
tool for Vietnam, all of the recommended translation steps were successfully performed at
least once as part of the translation process as shown in the Fig 1. Details of the process used
are as follows:
· Step 1: Forward translation performed by a bilingual physician and a PhD student whose
native tongue was Vietnamese, with experience translating documents from Vietnamese to
English, and who was also familiar with use of the PCAT. Translation prioritized preserving
the intent over the literal meaning of the items.
· Step 2: Qualitative review of the translated survey completed by a group of doctors and
researchers from Hanoi Medical School in a focus group discussion; every translated item
was reviewed to ensure its clarity, use of common language and conceptual adequacy.
· Step 3: Backward translation completed by a woman whose native language is American
English and has lived in the US long enough to know the language and routines of daily life
but was not already familiar with the specific wording of the original PCAT terms.
· Step 4: Doctors and health experts in Vietnam and translators jointly reviewed the
forward and backward translations to assess items that were not effectively translated and those
which were confusing or generated concerns. A few modifications were made and a
consensus translation was produced that was determined appropriate for use in Vietnam.
· Step 5: Lay panel review occurred by two different panels of non-subjects (consumers and
physicians) to review the translation, identify troublesome items, and propose alternatives.
· Step 6: Pilot testing was implemented using a final translated version. The translated
version was administered to 104 representative patients who were native Vietnamese speakers
and representative in terms of age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Basic descriptive
analyses were conducted to ensure adequate distribution of responses. Respondents were
debriefed to identify any wording or comprehension problems.
3 / 16
Fig 1. PCAT translation and validation process.
Based on challenges experienced in early efforts to utilize the tool, some important steps
were repeated to improve and ensure the high quality of the questionnaire including another
qualitative review to re-address the cultural relevance of each item. The research team
produced a list of problematic items and proposed solutions, with subsequent backward
translation. An expert panel, including family medicine leaders from all medical universities in
Vietnam with the specialty of family medicine, reviewed the suitability of each item as well as
the words used in the questionnaire, resulting in an updated translation of the questionnaire.
An additional pilot study was then conducted with 30 people living in two communes, and
some words and cultural references in specific items were identified for further revision. A
final revision was done by the research team after review of all the items and obtaining
additional advice from international experts with experience in PCAT validation. The final
translated version of the questionnaire for this study was then produced.
The most contentious issue throughout the process was what term to use in place of
ªprimary care provider (PCP)º as this is a completely unknown term in the Vietnamese context.
Efforts to address this also impacted the decision to repeat some translation and validation
steps. Ultimately through the lay and expert review processes, the term ªgeneral doctorº was
chosen to most closely represent this concept. Additional substantive changes were to replace
or reword items that are not typically present in Vietnam with those that were more
contextually relevant. For instance, descriptions of the types of facilities in the affiliation section were
changed to use more appropriate terminology relevant to Vietnam. Similarly, some clinical
services in the comprehensiveness domain were replaced to ensure items were sufficiently
4 / 16
A. EXTENT OF AFFILIATION WITH A PLACE/DOCTOR
What kind of office is your PCP? What kind of office is your GENERAL DOCTOR?
1. A hospital emergency room 1. A commune health center
2. A clinic at a hospital 2. A ward health center
3. A particular doctor's office outside a 3. An outpatient department of a district hospital
hospital 4. An outpatient department of a provincial hospital
4. A particular doctor's office inside a 5. An outpatient department of center hospital
hospital 6. A private clinic of a doctor outside of a hospital
5. A group office 7. A private clinic of a group doctors outside of a hospital
6. A neighborhood health clinic 8. Another type of place (Please specify)
7. A work or school clinic 9. Not sure/don't remember
relevant to the Vietnamese context, similar to changes in PCAT versions from other countries
]. Different country versions of the PCAT often have varying numbers of items to assess
this domain, and so two items in the Comprehensiveness (services available) domain (G21 and
G22) were completely eliminated and not replaced in the final expert review round due to
consensus on the extreme scarcity of the services. Table 1 shows the original and translated items
for the items that were most substantially modified.
Remaining as consistent as possible with the original tool, the translated questionnaire
contained 9 scales with 84 questions representing the primary care domains using a 4-point Likert
scale response format (1 = definitely not; 2 = probably not; 3 = probably; and 4 = definitely).
An additional ªdon't know/don't rememberº option was provided for each item. The
questionnaire also included demographic questions such as age, gender, and occupation as well as
health condition and degree of affiliation with a usual source of care.
Three questions were refined to identify an individual's usual source of care as a particular
person or place and the strength of that affiliation: (1) ªIs there a doctor or place that you
5 / 16
usually go if you are sick or need advice about your health?º (2) ªIs there a doctor or place
that knows you best as a person?º and (3) ªIs there a doctor or place that is most responsible
for your health care?º A person was considered to have a usual source of care if he or she
answered affirmatively to any one of these three questions, and no usual source of care if
they provided a negative answer to all three questions. An algorithm based on the responses
to these three questions was then used to categorize the strength of affiliation with a primary
care source. If all three physicians/places were the same, this was considered evidence of a
very strong affiliation. If the response to the first question was the same as for either of the
other two questions, then that site was used although the affiliation was categorized as less
strong. If the response to the first question was different from the other two responses but
the other two responses were the same, then the site where both were the same was used as
their primary care source and categorized as a weak affiliation. If all three responses were
different, then the site identified in the first question was used and categorized as a very weak
affiliation. All subsequent questions asked were intended to refer to this specific person or
place. For those with no identifiable source of primary care, subsequent questions were
asked about the last place that was visited.
To evaluate the feasibility, internal consistency and validity of the Vietnamese Primary Care
Assessment Tool (VN PCAT-AE), a quantitative cross-sectional study was conducted. A
multistage and purposive sampling approach was used to select the study sites. Three provinces
were chosen purposively to capture the diverse characteristics of central Vietnam: Khanh Hoa,
Thua Thien Hue and Quang Tri. To obtain a sample representing the diversity of the country,
we purposively selected two to four districts from each province, depending on the number of
commune health centers with working physicians. In addition, within these constraints, we
chose at least one lowland district, one mountainous district and one urban district when
possible. Specifically, in Thua Thien Hue, the survey was done with 24 communes in four districts
(six communes per district); in Quang Tri, 14 communes in three districts (one district with
six communes and two other districts with four communes); and in Khanh Hoa, two districts
with a total of 18 communes were selected, for an overall total of 56 communes.
From each commune, 30 households were selected. Half (15) of the households were
selected from a list of patients recently treated at the local CHC. The other households were
selected from a commune household list. Another 15 from each list were placed on reserve
lists for later use in the case of refusals or non-respondents. On the patient list from the CHC,
we started with the household of the first person on the examination list of the CHC (i.e. the
most recent patient), and then selected every 10th patient who followed (patients 11, 21, 31. . .)
until the intended sample size was reached. Using a similar technique, we selected every tenth
household from a separate list of households in the commune.
Each selected household was visited and the head of household surveyed, as well as one
other willing adult ( 18 years old) if available during this home visit. Data collection was
conducted from January through August of 2014 and questionnaires were administered through
in-person interviews. Only participants who had utilized health care services at a health facility
at least once over the past two years were surveyed.
Before the interview, participants received a full explanation of the study's content and
purpose and signed a consent form if they agreed to participate. Refusals were rare and so a
response rate was not specifically tracked, but surveyors estimated the refusal and
nonresponse rates at less than 5%. If a household refused or could not be reached after three
attempts, then another household was chosen at random from the reserve list. Participants
6 / 16
were compensated for their time with small gifts of appreciation (worth $2.50 USD) upon
completion of the interview.
This study obtained ethical approval from the Scientific Committee of Hue University of
Medicine and Pharmacy on 18th March 2014 and IRB review from Boston University
All collected questionnaires were cleaned and scanned into a computer for storage and
convenient review in the future, followed by entry into EpiData by a group of six students working
in pairs. Double data entry was used to check for errors in data entry. Data analysis was
performed using SPSS software version 23.0.
Subsequent full validation involved several steps. First, individual items were evaluated on
several criteria. Items with a high percentage ( 20%) of item non-response or ªdon't know/
don't rememberº responses, or items with a large floor or ceiling effect (>80% of respondents
chose the lowest or highest answering category) were removed. Next, the item-total correlation
for the remaining items in each scale was calculated (item-total correlation before review).
Items were removed if the item-total correlation was below 0.30 or if Cronbach's coefficient
alpha for that scale improved substantially when the item was removed. Finally,
item-discriminant validity was tested: for each item, the item-total correlation (item-total correlation after
review) with the hypothesized scale should be substantially higher than the correlation with
the other scales. In the second phase, Cronbach's coefficient alpha was used to examine how
well all items measured the same construct (internal consistency). A value of 0.70 is very often
seen as a minimum[
The recoding progress and calculation for the sum mean score of domains and subdomains
of primary care strictly complied with the guideline PCAT manual issued by John Hopkins
University in 1998. For calculating the sum mean scores of domains and subdomains, a mean
value was assigned to ªnot sure/don't rememberº answers as well as to missing values.
Characteristics of study population
Evaluation of the individual items
Evaluation of the individual items shows that fourteen items were problematic (Table 3).
Because of a high percentage of ªdon't know/don't rememberº or missing answers ( 20%),
two items were removed from the domain of First contactÐaccessibility (C8 and C10), in
addition to three items from the domain Comprehensiveness (services available) (G16, G17,
G18) and one item (J12) from the domain of Community orientation.
Next, items with a large floor or ceiling effect (>80%) were identified, including one item
from the domain of First contactÐaccessibility (C3) and two items from the domain of
Ongoing care (D2 and D3). Item-total correlations for the remaining items in each scale were then
used to identify those whose item-total correlation was below 0.30 including two items from
the domain of First contactÐaccessibility (C11, C12) and two items from the domain of
Ongoing care (D14 and D15). Finally, Cronbach's alpha was assessed (see Table 4) and improved
7 / 16
substantially (from 0.65 to 0.71) for the first contact-access domain when item C9 was
removed. For all items, the item-total correlation with the hypothesized scale was higher than
the correlation with the other scales (see S1 Table).
Internal consistency of the different scales
Based on these parameters, 70 items of the VN PCAT-AE were determined to be appropriate
for use in this population, to represent four core domains with six scales and three derivative
domains with three scales (Table 4). Except for the scale of Family Centeredness, all of the
retained scales have a Cronbach's alpha above 0.70.
Evaluation within subpopulations
The robustness of the results was explored in different subpopulations such as rural and urban
populations, provinces, populations from the CHC consumer's list and from the community
household list. The obtained results are highly stable, however there were a few items that
showed a poorer fit in some subpopulations: item C2 and item G2 in Quang Tri province,
item G1 in Khanh Hoa province and item G23 in the urban population.
Strictly applying standardized guidelines for translation and adaptation followed by a routine
psychometric validation method, we confirmed the Vietnamese PCAT (VN PCAT-AE) to be a
valid and reliable instrument for the Vietnamese context, making this the first proven tool
developed in Vietnam for comprehensive evaluation of primary care.
The VN PCAT-AE successfully measures all of the important domains of primary care with
six scales representing four core primary care domains: first contact accessibility and
utilization (first contact domain), ongoing care, coordination care, comprehensiveness-services
available and comprehensiveness-services provided (comprehensiveness domain). It also
9 / 16
When you have a new health problem, do you go to your
GENERAL DOCTOR before going somewhere else?
When you have to see a specialist, does your GENERAL
DOCTOR have to approve or give you a referral?
C. First contactÐaccessibility
Is your GENERAL DOCTOR open on Saturday or
Is your GENERAL DOCTOR open on at least some
weekday evenings until 8 PM?
When your GENERAL DOCTOR is open and you get
sick, would someone from there see you the same day?
When your GENERAL DOCTOR is open, can you get
advice quickly over the phone if you need it?
When your GENERAL DOCTOR is closed, is there a
phone number you can call when you get sick?
When your GENERAL DOCTOR is closed on Saturday
and Sunday and you get sick, would someone from there
see you the same day?
When your GENERAL DOCTOR is closed and you get
sick during the night, would someone from there see you
Is it easy to get an appointment for a general check-up
Once you get to your GENERAL DOCTOR, do you have
to wait more than 30 minutes before you are checked by
the doctor or nurse?
Do you have to wait a long time or talk to too many
people to make an appointment with your GENERAL
C11 Is it difficult for you to get medical care from your
GENERAL DOCTOR when you think it is needed?
When you have to go to your GENERAL DOCTOR, do
you have to take off from work or school to go?
D. ONGOING CARE
When you go to your GENERAL DOCTOR's, are you
taken care of by the same doctor or nurse each time?
Do you think your GENERAL DOCTOR understands
what you say or ask?
Are your questions to your GENERAL DOCTOR
answered in ways that you understand?
If you have a question, can you call and talk to the doctor
or nurse who knows you best?
Does your GENERAL DOCTOR give you enough time
to talk about your worries or problems?
Do you feel comfortable telling your GENERAL
DOCTOR about your worries or problems?
Would your GENERAL DOCTOR know if you had
trouble getting or paying for medicines you needed?
Does your GENERAL DOCTOR know about all the
medications you are taking?
Would you change from your GENERAL DOCTOR to
somewhere else if it was easy to do?
Did your GENERAL DOCTOR suggest you go to the
specialist or special service? (848)
Did your GENERAL DOCTOR know you made these
visits to the specialist or special service? (843)
Did your GENERAL DOCTOR discuss with you
different places you could have gone to get help with that
Did your GENERAL DOCTOR or someone working
with your GENERAL DOCTOR help you make the
appointment for that visit? (799)
Did your GENERAL DOCTOR write down any
information for the specialist about the reason for the
Does your GENERAL DOCTOR know what the results
of the visit were? (824)
After you went to the specialist or special service, did
your GENERAL DOCTOR talk with you about what
happened at the visit? (829)
Does your GENERAL DOCTOR seem interested in the
quality of care you get from that specialist or special
G. COMPREHENSIVENESS (SERVICES
Answers to questions about nutrition or diet
Checking to see if your family is eligible for any social
service programs or benefits such as: economic, medical,
Family planning or birth control methods
Substance or drug abuse counseling or treatment
Counseling for mental health problems
Counseling and treatment for alcoholism
G10 Sewing up a cut that needs stitches
G11 Counseling and testing for HIV/AIDS
G12 Ear check up
G13 Eye check up
G14 Allergy treatment
G15 Temporary fix for broken bone
Gastric catheter insertion/ nasogastric tube
G17 PAP tests for cervical cancer
G18 Rectal exams or sigmoidoscopy exams to test for bowel
G19 Smoking counseling
G20 Prenatal care
G23 Changes in mental or physical abilities that are normal
with getting older
G24 Postpartum care of umbilical cord
Monitoring of a normal Pregnancy
H. COMPREHENSIVENESS (SERVICES
Advice about healthy foods and unhealthy foods
Home safety, like preventing accidents, burning, electric
shock and storing medicines safely. . .
Advice on helmet use or safety seats
Ways to handle family conflicts that may arise from time
Advice about appropriate exercise for you
Does your GENERAL DOCTOR ask you about your
ideas and opinions when planning treatment and care
for you or a family member?
Has your GENERAL DOCTOR asked about illnesses or
problems that might run in your family?
Would your GENERAL DOCTOR meet with members
of your family if you thought it would be helpful?
J. COMMUNITY ORIENTATION
Does anyone at your GENERAL DOCTOR's office ever
make home visits?
Does your GENERAL DOCTOR know about the
important health problems of your neighbourhood?
Does your GENERAL DOCTOR get opinions and ideas
from people that will help to provide better health care?
Does your GENERAL DOCTOR do any of the following
to help determine the effectiveness of his/her services/
Surveys of patients to see if the services are meeting
Surveys in the community to find out about health
problems s/he should know about?
Collect feedback from patients on health staff
K. CULTURALLY COMPETENT
Would you recommend your GENERAL DOCTOR to a
friend or relative?
Would you recommend your GENERAL DOCTOR to
someone who does not speak Vietnamese well?
Would you recommend your GENERAL DOCTOR to
someone who uses folk medicine, such as herbs or
homemade medicines, or has special beliefs about health
SD: Standard deviation;
: Removed from further analysis
13 / 16
successfully measures another three derivative domains of family centeredness, community
orientation and cultural competence.
The VN PCAT-AE retains most major characteristics of the original PCAT version with 70
valid items. It is quite similar to PCAT versions in Argentina and South Africa with a few
items determined not to be appropriate in these settings and with the addition of questions
more relevant to their contexts [
]. In other countries, some researchers have shortened
the questionnaires by rearranging items into different scales or the addition or subtraction of
16, 17, 19
]. We however sought to maintain the integrity of the original tool to the
utmost degree possible.
It is also important to note, however, that the total absence or gross inadequacy of services in
a specific domain in a certain country or setting is likely to result in psychometric qualities that
threaten the validity of the tool in that domain. In Vietnam, despite of a series of great strides
and improvements over the last 20 years, the primary care system is still in an early phase of
development and many improvements have not yet been widely and systematically
implemented throughout the entire country. In particular, a substantial floor effect may be found as a
vast majority of patients in this study reported the absence of a variety of services. For instance,
many questions related to appointments were removed from the access domain because of the
absence of appointment systems in Vietnam, and thus resulted in removing half of the
questions from this domain. While the access domain in the VN PCAT-AE remains an overall valid
measure of validity, with the removal of so many items related to appointments, it may no
longer maintain the same level of integrity in this domain compared with the original tool.
With primary care services in Vietnam improving, however, it is possible that some
questions removed from the tool may become more valid in the future as the primary care system
becomes more sophisticated and thus future researchers may want to consider reintegrating
some of these questions in the tool and reassessing their validity. Recent positive changes in
policy and planning by the Ministry of Health and other government entities for family
medicine development and strengthening of the primary care network are anticipated to lead to
significant system improvements in the future.
This study has several potential limitations. Firstly, the sample was not recruited randomly
in an effort to purposively capture the diverse characteristics of the population in the Central
region. Secondly, it was a home survey in which the head of household and one additional
adult member were surveyed at time of the visit without a systemic method in place for
choosing the additional adult member if more than one might be available, and therefore potentially
introducing another source of bias.
14 / 16
In spite of these limitations, the Vietnamese PCAT version VN PCAT-AE demonstrates
adequate validity and reliability to be used as an effective tool for comprehensively measuring
the quality of primary care in Vietnam from the consumer perspective.
S1 Table. Item correlation with domain scores after review (item convergent validity and
item discriminant validity).
S1 Dataset. Vietnam PCAT consumer data.
We would like to acknowledge Elizabeth Henry, Ly Lai and Kristin Shaw from Boston
University, the many staff in the Family Medicine department at Hue University of Medicine &
Pharmacy, and the many family medicine leaders across Vietnam who reviewed and made
comments on this tool for their support throughout this work.
Conceptualization: Nguyen Thi Hoa, Nguyen Minh Tam, Wim Peersman, Anselme Derese,
Jeffrey F. Markuns.
Data curation: Nguyen Thi Hoa, Wim Peersman.
Formal analysis: Nguyen Thi Hoa, Wim Peersman, Jeffrey F. Markuns.
Funding acquisition: Nguyen Minh Tam, Anselme Derese, Jeffrey F. Markuns.
Investigation: Nguyen Thi Hoa, Nguyen Minh Tam.
Methodology: Nguyen Thi Hoa, Wim Peersman, Jeffrey F. Markuns.
Project administration: Nguyen Thi Hoa, Nguyen Minh Tam, Anselme Derese.
Resources: Nguyen Thi Hoa, Nguyen Minh Tam, Anselme Derese, Jeffrey F. Markuns.
Software: Nguyen Thi Hoa, Wim Peersman.
Supervision: Nguyen Thi Hoa, Nguyen Minh Tam, Wim Peersman, Anselme Derese, Jeffrey
Validation: Nguyen Thi Hoa, Wim Peersman, Jeffrey F. Markuns.
Visualization: Nguyen Thi Hoa, Wim Peersman, Jeffrey F. Markuns.
Writing ± original draft: Nguyen Thi Hoa, Nguyen Minh Tam, Wim Peersman, Anselme
Derese, Jeffrey F. Markuns.
Writing ± review & editing: Nguyen Thi Hoa, Nguyen Minh Tam, Wim Peersman, Anselme
Derese, Jeffrey F. Markuns.
15 / 16
1. Macinko J , Starfield B , Shi L . The contribution of primary care systems to health outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries , 1970 ± 1998 . Health services research. 2003 ; 38 ( 3 ): 831 ± 65 . https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1475 - 6773 .00149 PMID: 12822915
2. Starfield B , Shi L . Policy relevant determinants of health: an international perspective . Health Policy . 2002 ; 60 ( 3 ): 201 ± 18 . PMID: 11965331
3. Niti M , Ng TP . Avoidable hospitalisation rates in Singapore , 1991 ±1998: assessing trends and inequities of quality in primary care . J Epidemiol Community Health . 2003 ; 57 ( 1 ): 17 ± 22 . https://doi.org/10.1136/ jech.57.1.17 PMID: 12490643
4. Starfield B . Primary care and health. A cross-national comparison . JAMA . 1991 ; 266 ( 16 ): 2268 ± 71 . PMID: 1920727
5. Starfield B , Shi L , Macinko J . Contribution of primary care to health systems and health . Milbank quarterly . 2005 ; 83 ( 3 ): 457 ± 502 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0009 . 2005 . 00409 . x PMID : 16202000
6 . Chang CH , Stukel TA , Flood AB , Goodman DC . Primary care physician workforce and Medicare beneficiaries' health outcomes . JAMA . 2011 ; 305 ( 20 ): 2096 ±104. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama. 2011 .665 PMID: 21610242
7. Kravet SJ , Shore AD , Miller R , Green GB , Kolodner K , Wright SM . Health care utilization and the proportion of primary care physicians . Am J Med . 2008 ; 121 ( 2 ): 142 ±8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed. 2007 . 10 .021 PMID: 18261503
8. Macinko J , Starfield B , Erinosho T. The impact of primary healthcare on population health in low- and middle-income countries . J Ambul Care Manage . 2009 ; 32 ( 2 ): 150 ± 71 . https://doi.org/10.1097/JAC. 0b013e3181994221 PMID: 19305227
World Health Organization. The World Health Report 2008 : Primary health care _Now more than ever .
World Health Organization Commission on Social Determinants of Change. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health . 2008 .
11. Prime Minister . Decision No.92/QĐ-TTg January 9 , 2013 , Approval of the project for reducing overcrowding at hospitals in period 2013±2020 (in Vietnamese) . QuyeÃÂt đinh SoÃÂ 92/QĐ-TTg: Phê duyeÃt đeÃÁ aÂn gim quaÂ tải beÃnh vieÃn giai đoan 2013 ± 2020 . Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç
12. Ministry of Health. Decision No.935/QĐ-BYT March 22 , 2013 , Approval of the project for the building and development of the family medicine clinic model in the period 2013±2020 (in Vietnamese) . QuyeÃÂt đinh SoÃÂ 935/QĐ-BYT: Phê duyeÃt đeÃÁ aÂn xaÃy dựng và phaÂt triển moÃ hÁõnh phòng khaÂm baÂc syÄ gia đÁõnh giai đÇoan 2013 ± 2020 . Ç Ç
13. Malouin RA , Starfield B , Sepulveda MJ . Evaluating the tools used to assess the medical home . Managed Care (Langhorne, Pa) . 2009 ; 18 ( 6 ): 44 ± 8 .
14. Shi L , Starfield B , Xu J. Validating the adult primary care assessment tool . Journal of Family Practice . 2001 ; 50 ( 2 ): 161 ± 75 .
15. Shi L , Pinto DM , Guanais FC . Measurement of Primary Care: Report on the Johns Hopkins Primary Care Assessment Tool . Inter-American Development Bank; 2013 .
16. Rocha KB , Rodriguez-Sanz M , Pasarin MI , Berra S , Gotsens M , Borrell C . Assessment of primary care in health surveys: a population perspective . Eur J Public Health . 2012 ; 22 ( 1 ): 14 ±9. https://doi.org/10. 1093/eurpub/ckr014 PMID: 21470974
17. Aoki T , Inoue M , Nakayama T . Development and validation of the Japanese version of Primary Care Assessment Tool . Family practice. 2016 ; 33 ( 1 ): 112 ±7. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmv087 PMID: 26546033
Wang W , Shi L , Yin A , Lai Y , Maitland E , Nicholas S. Development and validation of the Tibetan primary care assessment tool . BioMed research international. 2014 ; 2014 :308739. https://doi.org/10.1155/ 2014 /308739 PMID: 24967349
19. Yang H , Shi L , Lebrun LA , Zhou X , Liu J , Wang H . Development of the Chinese primary care assessment tool: data quality and measurement properties . International journal for quality in health care: journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care / ISQua . 2013 ; 25 ( 1 ): 92 ± 105 .
20. Berra S , Hauser L , Audisio Y , Mantaras J , Nicora V , de Oliveira MM , et al. [ Validity and reliability of the Argentine version of the PCAT-AE for the evaluation of primary health care] . Rev Panam Salud Publica . 2013 ; 33 ( 1 ): 30 ± 9 . PMID: 23440155
21. Terwee CB , Bot SD , de Boer MR , van der Windt DA , Knol DL , Dekker J , et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires . Journal of clinical epidemiology . 2007 ; 60 ( 1 ): 34 ± 42 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi. 2006 . 03 .012 PMID: 17161752
22. Bresick G , Sayed A -R, le Grange C , Bhagwan S , Manga N. Adaptation and cross-cultural validation of the United States Primary Care Assessment Tool (expanded version) for use in South Africa . African journal of primary health care & family medicine . 2015 ; 7 ( 1 ):1± 11 .