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.

Introduction Primary healthcare (PHC) serves as the cornerstone for the attainment of universal health coverage (UHC). Efforts to promote UHC should focus on the expansion of access and on healthcare quality. However, robust quality evidence has remained scarce in China. Common quality assessment methods such as chart abstraction, patient rating and clinical vignette use indirect information that may not represent real practice. This study will send standardised patients (SP or healthy person trained to consistently simulate the medical history, physical symptoms and emotional characteristics of a real patient) unannounced to PHC providers to collect quality information and represent real practice. Methods and analysis 1981 SP-clinician visits will be made to a random sample of PHC providers across seven provinces in China. SP cases will be developed for 10 tracer conditions in PHC. Each case will include a standard script for the SP to use and a quality checklist that the SP will complete after the clinical visit to indicate diagnostic and treatment activities performed by the clinician. Patient-centredness will be assessed according to the Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness Rating Scale by the SP. SP cases and the checklist will be developed through a standard protocol and assessed for content, face and criterion validity, and test-retest and inter-rater reliability before its full use. Various descriptive analyses will be performed for the survey results, such as a tabulation of quality scores across geographies and provider types. Ethics and dissemination This study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the School of Public Health of Sun Yat-sen University (#SYSU 2017-011). Results will be actively disseminated through print and social media, and SP tools will be made available for other researchers.

Background: The prevalence of hypertension is high and is increasing worldwide, whereas the proportion of controlled hypertension is low. Purpose: To assess the comparative effectiveness of 8 implementation strategies for blood pressure (BP) control in adults with hypertension. Data Sources: Systematic searches of MEDLINE and Embase from inception to September 2017 with no language restrictions, supplemented with manual reference searches. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials lasting at least 6 months comparing the effect of implementation strategies versus usual care on BP reduction in adults with hypertension. Data Extraction: Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Data Synthesis: A total of 121 comparisons from 100 articles with 55 920 hypertensive patients were included. Multilevel, multicomponent strategies were most effective for systolic BP reduction, including team-based care with medication titration by a nonphysician (-7.1 mm Hg [95% CI, -8.9 to -5.2 mm Hg]), team-based care with medication titration by a physician (-6.2 mm Hg [CI, -8.1 to -4.2 mm Hg]), and multilevel strategies without team-based care (-5.0 mm Hg [CI, -8.0 to -2.0 mm Hg]). Patient-level strategies resulted in systolic BP changes of -3.9 mm Hg (CI, -5.4 to -2.3 mm Hg) for health coaching and -2.7 mm Hg (CI, -3.6 to -1.7 mm Hg) for home BP monitoring. Similar trends were seen for diastolic BP reduction. Limitation: Sparse data from low- and middle-income countries; few trials of some implementation strategies, such as provider training; and possible publication bias. Conclusion: Multilevel, multicomponent strategies, followed by patient-level strategies, are most effective for BP control in patients with hypertension and should be used to improve hypertension control.