IntroductionThe Chinese government has encouraged the development of private sector in delivering healthcare, including primary healthcare (PHC) in the new round of national health reform since 2009. However, the debate about the role of the private sector in achieving universal health coverage continues with poor support from theories and empirical evidence. This study intends to compare the quality of PHC services between the private and public providers in seven provinces in China, using unannounced standardised patients (USPs).MethodsWe are developing and validating 13 USP cases most commonly observed in the PHC setting. Six domains of quality will be assessed by the USP: effectiveness, safety, patient centredness, efficiency, timeliness and equity. The USP will make 2200 visits to 705 public and 521 private PHC institutions across seven provinces, following a multistage clustered sample design. Using each USP-provider encounter as the analytical unit, we will first descriptively compare the raw differences in quality between the private and public providers and then analyse the association of ownership types and quality, using propensity score weighting.Ethics and disseminationThe study was primarily funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (#71974211, #71874116 and # 72074163) and was also supported by the China Medical Board (#16-260, #18-300 and #18-301), and have received ethical approval from Sun Yat-sen University (#2019-024). The validated USP tool and the data collected in this study will be freely available for the public after the primary analysis of the study.Trial registration numberChinese Clinical Trial Registry: #ChiCTR2000032773.

The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the treatment of depression in patients with Parkinson disease in order to arrive at qualitative and quantitative conclusions about the efficacy of rTMS. We included randomized controlled trials examining the effects of rTMS compared with sham-rTMS or selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs). The quality of included studies was strictly evaluated. Data analyses were performed using the RevMan5.1 software. Eight studies including 312 patients met all inclusion criteria. The results showed that rTMS could evidently improve the HRSD score compared with sham-rTMS (p < 0.00001). However, we found similar antidepressant efficacy between rTMS and SSRIs groups in terms of HRSD and BDI score (p = 0.65; p = 0.75, respectively). Furthermore, patients who received rTMS could evidently show improvement on the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS), ADL score, and UPDRS motor score compared with sham-rTMS or SSRIs (p < 0.05, p = 0.05, respectively). The subgroup analysis by frequency of rTMS evidenced that the efficacy of low-frequency rTMS was superior to sham-rTMS (p < 0.0001) in terms of the outcome measure according to HAMD scale. Meanwhile, the high-frequency rTMS has the same antidepressant efficacy as SSRIs (p = 0.94). The current meta-analysis provided evidence that rTMS was superior to sham-rTMS and had similar antidepressant efficacy as SSRIs, and may have the additional advantage of some improvement in motor function