ArticleBMC primary care2026
Public preferences for primary healthcare services in Hong Kong: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary healthcare has been recognised as an important intervention to enhance public health. Understanding public preferences in primary healthcare policy design is thus essential to achieving higher participation and better service quality through optimised resource allocation. While previous research has focused on macro-level systems, welfare frameworks, and policy legitimacy, there is a lack of literature examining the general public’s primary healthcare preferences from a micro perspective. Our study aims to bridge this gap and provide additional comparative perspectives on primary healthcare service design.
methodsWe administered a discrete choice experiment to a representative sample of Hong Kong’s general population. Six attributes were developed based on a comprehensive and evidence-based investigation: (1) provider type, (2) payment option, (3) mix of healthcare providers, (4) percentage of Western medicine doctors in the healthcare team, (5) travel time required, and (6) digital services offered. Respondents were presented with six hypothetical scenarios and asked to choose one of two profiles related to these attributes in each scenario. A mixed multinomial logit model was adopted for analysis.
resultsWe identified a strong public preference for primary healthcare centres run by non-profit organisations and for users to pay any incurred costs directly. Respondents preferred a mix of healthcare providers; however, a shorter travel time and digital services were not attractive to them. The standard deviations across random parameters were large, indicating heterogeneity in preferences.
conclusionsOur findings establish a strong preference for non-profit organisations as primary healthcare providers and for interdisciplinary healthcare teams. High heterogeneity in individual preferences across most of the attributes implies that users expect a high degree of personalisation in primary healthcare services.
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.