ArticleBMC health services research2025
"We get support now …": a mixed methods study of patients' experiences of healthcare under the national health insurance scheme (PM-JAY) in India.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPublicly-funded health insurance (PFHI) schemes are widely employed in low- and middle-income countries to enhance financial protection and advance universal health coverage. India's Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY), launched in 2018, provides inpatient coverage to over 500 million socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals. Although positive patient experiences are linked to improved health outcomes, evidence on patient experiences under PM-JAY remains limited. This mixed-methods study investigates patient experiences with PM-JAY healthcare services, while incorporating provider reflections on these experiences.
methodsA concurrent triangulation mixed-methods study was conducted across 16 districts in 7 Indian states. Qualitative data were collected via semi-structured interviews (n = 219 doctors, n = 55 beneficiaries) and 28 focus group discussions with beneficiaries. Quantitative data included 508 patient exit surveys, 115 hospital surveys, and 115 infrastructure checklists. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis. Data triangulation occurred during the analysis phase.
resultsWhile hospitals had the required physical amenities and patient exit surveys indicated very high satisfaction with PM-JAY services, the qualitative interviews and group discussions with beneficiaries and healthcare providers revealed several areas needing procedural and service improvements. Chief among these were the need for better communication, and enhanced abilities of PM-JAY implementers to provide empathetic and coordinated care. There were also stark differences across states: beneficiaries in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Kerala, Meghalaya and Tamil Nadu were more appreciative of PM-JAY services, while those in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh reported significant dissatisfaction.
conclusionsBeneficiaries and healthcare providers identified key areas for improvement, including patient-provider communication, empathy, emotional support, care coordination, and quality. Barriers included limited awareness of scheme processes among beneficiaries and providers, and deficient communication skills. Addressing organizational and structural challenges, alongside using informal community networks via frontline health workers, offer opportunities to enhance PM-JAY healthcare delivery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.