Table 3 Details of the comparison among different model of primary health care for different type of collaborations
Horizontal collaboration : Planning services offered (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005 | 2010 | df | T-value | P-value | |
First-generation FMGs | 77,5% | 82,5% | 39 | −0,628 | 0,534 |
Second-generation FMGs | 10,7% | 75,0% | 27 | −6,971 | 0,000 |
Network clinics | 20,0% | 40,0% | 19 | −1,453 | 0,163 |
CLSCs | 21,9% | 31,2% | 31 | −0,828 | 0,414 |
Private medical clinics | 20,9% | 11,9% | 176 | 2,244 | 0,026 |
Total | 27,6% | 31,3% | 296 | −1,095 | 0,274 |
Horizontal collaboration : Exchange of resources (%) | |||||
2005 | 2010 | df | T-value | P-value | |
First-generation FMGs | 17,5% | 32,5% | 39 | −1,778 | 0,083 |
Second-generation FMGs | 3,6% | 10,7% | 27 | −1,000 | 0,326 |
Network clinics | 5,0% | 15,0% | 19 | −1,453 | 0,163 |
CLSCs | 6,2% | 15,6% | 31 | −1,791 | 0,083 |
Private medical clinics | 4,5% | 2,8% | 176 | 1,000 | 0,319 |
Total | 6,4% | 9,8% | 296 | −1,833 | 0,068 |
Vertical collaboration : Access to technical services (%) | |||||
2005 | 2010 | df | T-value | P-value | |
First-generation FMGs | 47,5% | 52,5% | 39 | −0,530 | 0,599 |
Second-generation FMGs | 25,0% | 32,1% | 27 | −0,570 | 0,573 |
Network clinics | 35,0% | 70,0% | 19 | −2,333 | 0,031 |
CLSCs | 37,5% | 53,1% | 31 | −1,305 | 0,201 |
Private medical clinics | 22,6% | 19,8% | 176 | 0,728 | 0,467 |
Total | 28,6% | 32,3% | 296 | −1,106 | 0,270 |
Vertical collaboration : follow-up for hospitalised patients or patients seen at the clinic (%) | |||||
2005 | 2010 | df | T-value | P-value | |
First-generation FMGs | 67,5% | 57,5% | 39 | 0,941 | 0,352 |
Second-generation FMGs | 42,9% | 53,6% | 27 | −0,721 | 0,477 |
Network clinics | 40,0% | 40,0% | 19 | 0,000 | 1,000 |
CLSCs | 37,5% | 31,2% | 31 | 0,701 | 0,488 |
Private medical clinics | 32,2% | 22,0% | 176 | 2,534 | 0,012 |
Total | 39,1% | 32,0% | 296 | 2,061 | 0,040 |