Patient experience with primary health care services can vary markedly between different types of health care facilities, even within the same country setting. Given known benefits of high quality primary health care, the performance of these facilities may significantly impact population health. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of primary care in different types of health facilities as experienced by Vietnamese consumers. 1662 people who utilized primary health care services at least once over the past two years in various types of facilities in central Vietnam were surveyed in a cross-sectional study using the Vietnamese version of the Primary Care Assessment Tool (VN PCAT-AE) to assess overall primary care quality as well as several different domains of high quality primary care services. Commune health centers were associated with the highest overall primary care quality (PCAT expanded score 21.07, p < 0.001) as well as high scores in nearly all individual domains of primary care quality experienced by consumers compared with other types of facilities. Conversely, private facilities such as private clinics and pharmacies were rated lowest overall (PCAT expanded score 18.45, p < 0.05 and 16.90, p < 0.001 respectively). District hospitals and other government hospitals (PCAT expanded score 20.10 and 19.72 respectively) were reported as the best quality in comprehensiveness of available services (p < 0.001). Polyclinics performed quite well in comprehensiveness of services available (3.11) and first contact-access (2.79) but less so in other domains, especially in cultural competency (1.87). The high quality of primary care services experienced by consumers in commune health centers compared with other facilities gives Vietnam ample reason to promote greater use of these community-based primary care facilities. Populations may benefit most from building and strengthening grassroots networks of such community-based health centers as an effective solution for overcrowding at hospitals while simultaneously providing better overall health outcomes.

Measuring the performance of a primary care system is one of the very first steps to find out whether there is room for improvement. To obtain an objective and comprehensive view, this measurement should come from both the supply and demand sides of the system. Patients’ experiences of primary care have been studied around the world, but much less energy has been invested in researching providers’ perspectives. This research aims to explore how primary care physicians working at commune health centers in Vietnam evaluate their performance and their opinions on how to improve the quality of primary care services. First, a quantitative study was conducted using the validated Vietnamese PCAT questionnaire—provider expanded version (VN PCAT PE) targeting all primary care physicians (PCPs) working at commune health centers in a province of Central Vietnam. Next, a qualitative study was carried out, consisting of in-depth interviews with PCPs, to better understand the results of the quantitative survey and gain insight on barriers of primary care services and how to overcome them. In the quantitative portion of our study, 150 PCPs rated the quality of ongoing care and first contact in CHCs as the best (3.09 and 3.11 out of 4, respectively), and coordination as the worst performing core domain (2.53). Twenty-two PCPs also participated in our qualitative research. In regards to challenges that primary care physicians face during their daily practice, three central themes emerged: 1) patient factors such as client attitude and knowledge, 2) provider factors such as the burden of administrative work and lack of training opportunities, and 3) contextual factors such as low income and lack of resources including medicines and diagnostics. Participants recommended more health promotion campaigns in the media, increasing the number of services available at CHCs (such as being able to take blood samples), reducing the workload related to administration for CHC leaders, greater government subsidies, and providing more training courses for PCPs. Findings from this study offer a valuable view from the supply-side of the primary care system, specifically those who directly deliver primary care services. Along with the earlier study on consumers’ evaluation of the Vietnamese primary care system, and literature from other low and middle-income countries, these findings offer emerging evidence for policymakers to improve the quality of primary care in Vietnam.

In Vietnam, each primary care community health center (CHC) consists of a multi-professional team with six disciplines, including a physician, assistant physician, nurse, pharmacist, midwife, and Vietnamese traditional physician, who are able to meet the majority of patient's needs at the primary care level. How they collaborate, especially in chronic disease management (CDM), is still limited described in the literature. This study aims to gain insight into the perceptions and the experiences of primary health care providers (PHCPs) toward interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in CDM in CHCs in (Hue) Vietnam. A qualitative study of descriptive phenomenology was performed using two focus groups and 15 semi-structured interviews with PHCPs from six professions relevant to CDM in CHCs. The data were analyzed using NVivo 12.0 with a thematic analysis method by a multiprofessional research team. From the analysis, the data were classified into three main themes: "lack of collaborative practice," "knowledge," and "facilitators and barriers to IPC." This study provided evidence of the awareness that actual collaboration in daily care is fragmentarily organized and that PHCPs try to finish their tasks within their profession. PHCPs work multiprofessionally and lack shared decision-making in patient-centered care. There is a need to develop an interprofessional education program and training to address these deficiencies in the Vietnamese context to improve interprofessional collaboration in health care.

Background: Interprofessional education (IPE) is expected to help prepare undergraduate health profession students to collaborate with other healthcare professionals in realising quality of care. Studies stress the necessity of students’ readiness for interprofessional learning (IPL) in view of designing IPE programs. The present study aims to determine students' IPL-readiness and looks at related differences in students enrolled in different programs and at different phases in their educational program. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study was set up among 1139 students from six health programs at HueUMP, using the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS). Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal–Wallis H and Mann–Whitney U tests. Results: The overall mean RIPLS score was 68.89. RIPLS scores significantly differed between programs and between phases in the educational programs. Medical students presented a lower readiness level for IPL than students from other programs. In contrast to a significant increase in RIPLS scores of students in the clinical phase in Vietnamese traditional medicine, medicine, and pharmacy, a decrease in RIPLS scores was observed in students in the clinical phase in odonto-stomatology. Conclusions: The differences could be related to differences in educational programs and the study phases in a particular program. These results offer insights to direct the design and implementation of IPE in health education curricula and especially underscore the need to provide IPE throughout the curriculum.

Introduction: The literature puts forward a range of challenges of interprofessional education (IPE) related to its planning, initiation, implementation, and especially to IPE assessment. The present study aims to map changes in students’ readiness and interprofessional collaboration competence (IPCC) in implementing an innovative IPE module. Potential differences in impact related to the health education programs and IPCC scores resulting from self-, peer-, and tutor assessments will also be analysed. Methods: A pre-post design was adopted. The student’s readiness for interprofessional learning was assessed using the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale, and the student’s IPCC score was calculated based on self-, peer-, and tutor assessments with the interprofessional collaborator assessment rubric. Results: Students’ mean post-test readiness scores and mean post-test IPCC scores were significantly higher than the total and subscales/domain pre-test scores (p<0.01). No significant within-subject differences were observed in students’ readiness total or subscale scores when comparing health educational programs. However, significant differences were observed in students’ mean total IPCC scores between programs (p<0.01). Significant differences in students’ average IPCC scores were found when comparing self-, peer- and tutor assessment scores in six domains (p<0.01). Also, significant correlations between peer and tutor assessment scores were observed (p<0.01). Conclusion: The IPE module, designed and implemented to focus on patient-centred practice within a primary care context, positively impacted students’ readiness and IPCC development. These results offer insights to expand the implementation of the IPE module to all health educational programs.

Objectives: Our study aimed to identify the complex interplay between self-efficacy, self-care practice, and glycaemic control among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (PWDs) to inform the design of more targeted and effective behavioural interventions in primary care. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was performed with 294 PWDs managed in primary care. The Diabetes Management Self-Efficacy Scale (DMSES) and Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA) questionnaire measured patients’ self-efficacy and self-care practice. Multivariate logistic regression models were developed to explore how SDSCA, DMSES, and their combined effect relate to glycaemic control, adjusting for patient characteristics. Network analysis in R software examined relationships between self-efficacy and self-care dimensions across glycaemic control subgroups using a Gaussian graphical model with the extended Bayesian information criterion. Results: Half the PWDs (50.7%) had suboptimal glycaemic control. Better glycaemic control was consistently associated with higher self-efficacy (odds ratio (OR) = 0.76, 95% confidence (CI) (0.60, 0.97), p = 0.03), shorter duration of diabetes (OR = 1.89, 95% CI (1.08, 3.31), p = 0.03), normal waist circumference (OR = 1.76, 95% CI (1.02, 3.05), p = 0.04), absence of diabetes complications (OR = 2.09, 95% CI (1.10, 3.98), p = 0.02), and treatment with oral hypoglycaemic agents (OR = 3.05, 95% CI (1.53, 6.09), p < 0.01). Network analysis among people with well-controlled HbA1c revealed that diet adherence and self-efficacy had the most robust connection, with diet self-efficacy strongly associated with most self-efficacy dimensions. Self-efficacy in exercise, blood glucose monitoring, and foot care are the most central factors in the network structures for PWDs with suboptimal glycaemic control. Conclusions: Our study highlights the critical role of self-efficacy in diabetes primary care. For people with optimal glycaemic control, prioritising self-efficacy in diet adherence is crucial for sustaining glycaemic outcomes and supporting other self-care behaviours. Among those with suboptimal glycaemic control, enhancing self-efficacy in exercise, blood glucose monitoring, and foot care is essential. Targeted education programs, personalised counselling, and E-health tools can further empower patients to manage their diabetes more effectively.