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.

This review aims to identify, assess and analyse the evidence on equity in the distribution of public health sector expenditure in low- and middle-income countries. Four bibliographic databases and five websites were searched to identify quantitative studies examining equity in the distribution of public health funding in individual countries or groups of countries. Two different types of studies were identified: benefit incidence analysis (BIA) and resource allocation comparison (RAC) studies. Quality appraisal and data synthesis were tailored to each study type to reflect differences in the methods used and in the information provided. We identified 39 studies focusing on African, Asian and Latin American countries. Of these, 31 were BIA studies that described the distribution, typically across socio-economic status, of individual monetary benefit derived from service utilization. The remaining eight were RAC studies that compared the actual expenditure across geographic areas to an ideal need-based distribution. Overall, the quality of the evidence from both types of study was relatively weak. Looking across studies, the evidence confirms that resource allocation formulae can enhance equity in resource allocation across geographic areas and that the poor benefits proportionally more from primary health care than from hospital expenditure. The lack of information on the distribution of benefit from utilization in RAC studies and on the countries' approaches to resource allocation in BIA studies prevents further policy analysis. Additional research that relates the type of resource allocation mechanism to service provision and to the benefit distribution is required for a better understanding of equity-enhancing resource allocation policies.