Background
One of the core aims of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) is to provide all people throughout the world with equal, unbiased access to and ensure measures are in place to enable utilisation of basic Primary Health Care Services (PHCS) [
1]. International evidence continues to demonstrate the fundamental role PHCS plays in improving population health through the reduction of morbidity and all-cause mortality [
2,
3]. The impact of globalisation alongside the progression of developing and middle-income countries demographic and epidemiological transition has resulted in a rise in chronic disease [
4]. It is reported that the Middle East and North African regions are now shown to have the highest regional prevalence of chronic diseases for 2011, (after age standardisation to the world population) [
5,
6]. Consequently, tackling the rising chronic disease burden alongside the associated cost to the national health care systems [
7,
8] represents a central agenda for policymakers when addressing changes to PHCS [
9].
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) represents a middle Eastern country which has seen an increased chronic disease burden [
10]. Current evidence has indicated that KSA has the 7
th highest rate of Diabetes Mellitus (DM) in the world [
11,
12] alongside markedly increased rates of hypertension and coronary heart disease [
13,
14]. This has, consequently, led to increased health costs to the government. For example, the current cost of diabetes in estimated at 17 billion Riyals [
10] which is expected to increase to 43 billion Riyals [
11].
The existing evidence base (the majority of which is based on evidence from the developed world) shows that early intervention has proven to be an effective strategy for reducing the incidence of chronic diseases and the difficulties, including the costs, associated with treatment of such diseases at the later stages of the conditions [
15,
16]. Internationally, research suggests that access to and utilisation of PHCS can been unequal in countries between urban and rural (and nomadic) populations, with the latter having the poorest access to and utilisation of PHCS [
10]. Rural (and nomadic) populations are also the most deprived groups within the KSA population [
17,
18].
There is a paucity of evidence in comparing access to and utilisation of PHCS between urban and rural populations. By understanding the barriers and enablers to accessing PHCS in rural and urban areas in Riyadh province, KSA, this study will contribute towards reducing inequalities in access to and utilisation of PHCS. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and enablers in relation to access to and utilisation of PHCS among a sample of patients attending PHCS in rural and urban areas of Riyadh province.
Results
A total of 935 responses were obtained with 52.9% of patient respondents from urban areas and the remaining 47.1% from rural areas. Results are presented in Table
4.
Table 4
Chi-square comparison of respondents by urban and rural location
Socio-demographic characteristics |
Gender | Male | 208 | 47.3 | 2.4 | 195 | 39.4 | −2.4 | 5.9 | ** |
Female | 232 | 52.7 | −2.4 | 300 | 60.6 | 2.4 | | |
Age | <20 | 25 | 5.7 | 0.6 | 24 | 4.8 | −0.6 | 10.66 | * |
21-30 | 141 | 32 | −1.6 | 184 | 37.2 | 1.6 | | |
31-40 | 127 | 28.9 | 0.8 | 131 | 26.5 | −0.8 | | |
41-50 | 95 | 21.6 | 1.5 | 87 | 17.6 | −1.5 | | |
51-60 | 38 | 8.6 | 0.8 | 36 | 7.3 | −1.5 | | |
60 year.+ | 14 | 3.2 | −2.4 | 33 | 6.7 | 2.4 | | |
Education level | 0-16 years. | 77 | 17.5 | 1.7 | 67 | 13.5 | −1.7 | 13.26 | ** |
17-18 years. | 106 | 24.1 | −3.2 | 166 | 33.5 | 3.2 | | |
19 years+ | 222 | 50.5 | 2.3 | 213 | 43 | −2.3 | | |
Still in education | 35 | 8 | −1 | 49 | 9.9 | 1 | | |
Current monthly income | SAR 3,000 or less | 168 | 38.2 | −3.9 | 252 | 50.9 | 3.9 | 18.64 | *** |
SAR 3–8,000 | 240 | 54.5 | 2.7 | 226 | 45.7 | −2.7 | | |
SAR 8–15,000 | 32 | 7.3 | 2.6 | 17 | 3.4 | −2.6 | | |
Health status |
Perceived health status | Excellent | 58 | 13.2 | 0 | 65 | 13.1 | 0 | 1.84 |
NS
|
Very good | 233 | 53 | −0.4 | 269 | 54.3 | 0.4 | | |
Good | 145 | 33 | 0.7 | 152 | 30.7 | −0.7 | | |
Fair | 4 | 0.9 | −1.2 | 9 | 1.8 | 1.2 | | |
Prescribed medication | Yes | 209 | 47.5 | 0.4 | 229 | 46.3 | −0.4 | 0.14 |
NS
|
No | 231 | 52.5 | −0.4 | 266 | 53.7 | 0.4 | | |
Use of services |
Made apt. with doctor | Yes | 0 | 0 | −0.9 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 0.89 |
NS
|
No | 440 | 100 | 0.9 | 494 | 99.8 | 0.9 | | |
Referral to specialist | Yes | 265 | 60.2 | 1.8 | 270 | 54.5 | −1.8 | 3.07 |
NS
|
No | 175 | 39.8 | −1.8 | 225 | 45.5 | 1.8 | | |
Medical investigations | No response | 196 | 44.5 | −6.1 | 319 | 64.4 | 6.1 | 64.69 | *** |
Yes | 119 | 27 | 0.2 | 131 | 26.5 | −0.2 | | |
No | 116 | 26.4 | 7.4 | 41 | 8.3 | −7.4 | | |
Do not remember | 9 | 2 | 1.6 | 4 | 0.8 | −1.6 | | |
Organisational factors |
See doctor on time at apt. | Not at all | 440 | 100 | 0.9 | 494 | 0.2 | −0.9 | 0.89 |
NS
|
Seen without apt. | 0 | 0 | −0.9 | 1 | 99.8 | 0.9 | | |
Received blood results on time | No response | 321 | 73 | −0.2 | 364 | 73.5 | 0.2 | 6.33 |
NS
|
Yes on time | 84 | 19.1 | −1 | 107 | 21.6 | 1 | | |
Later expected | 34 | 7.7 | 2.3 | 21 | 4.2 | −2.3 | | |
Still waiting | 1 | 0.2 | −0.9 | 3 | 0.6 | 0.9 | | |
Opening hours | Yes often | 30 | 6.8 | 0 | 34 | 6.9 | 0 | 0.66 |
NS
|
Yes sometimes | 125 | 28.4 | 0.8 | 129 | 26.1 | −0.8 | | |
No | 285 | 64.8 | −0.7 | 332 | 67.1 | 0.7 | | |
Extra opening times | No extra hours | 234 | 53.2 | 3.3 | 210 | 42.4 | −3.3 | 28.75 | *** |
Early mornings | 11 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 10 | 2 | −0.5 | | |
Evenings | 103 | 23.4 | −4.7 | 187 | 37.8 | 4.7 | | |
Saturdays | 90 | 20.5 | 1.4 | 84 | 17 | −1.4 | | |
Fridays | 2 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | −1.5 | | |
No response | 0 | 0 | −1.9 | 4 | 0.8 | 1.9 | | |
Extra opening days | No response | 0 | 0 | −1.9 | 4 | 0.8 | 1.9 | 17.67 | *** |
One day per week | 124 | 28.2 | −1.8 | 166 | 33.5 | 1.8 | | |
2-3 days per week | 126 | 28.6 | −0.3 | 146 | 29.5 | 0.3 | | |
4-5 days per week | 57 | 13 | 3.6 | 30 | 6.1 | −3.6 | | |
Don’t know | 133 | 30.2 | 0 | 149 | 30.1 | 0 | | |
Distance to PCC | Yes | 123 | 28 | 5.7 | 64 | 12.9 | −5.7 | 32.87 | *** |
No | 317 | 72 | −5.7 | 431 | 87.1 | 5.7 | | |
Cleanliness of PCC | Very clean | 245 | 55.7 | −4 | 339 | 68.5 | 4 | 42.43 | *** |
Fairly clean | 157 | 35.7 | 1.5 | 153 | 30.9 | −1.5 | | |
Not very clean | 24 | 5.5 | 4.4 | 3 | 0.6 | −4.4 | | |
Not at all clean | 12 | 2.7 | 3.7 | 0 | 0 | −3.7 | | |
Unable to say | 2 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | −1.5 | | |
Mobility within PCC | Very easy | 408 | 92.7 | −3.1 | 481 | 97.2 | 3.1 | 12.16 | ** |
Fairly easy | 31 | 7 | 3.2 | 13 | 2.6 | −3.2 | | |
Not at all easy | 0 | 0 | −0.9 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.9 | | |
Unable to say | 1 | 0.2 | 1.1 | 0 | 0 | −1.1 | | |
Help understanding Arabic | No response | 1 | 0.2 | −1.2 | 4 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.48 |
NS
|
Yes | 1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.2 | −0.1 | | |
No | 438 | 99.5 | 1 | 490 | 99 | −1 | | |
Financial factors |
Pay for prescribed medicine/s | Yes | 14 | 3.2 | −1.1 | 23 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 1.31 |
NS
|
No | 426 | 96.8 | 1.1 | 472 | 95.4 | −1.1 | | |
Doctor patient communication |
Doctor listened carefully | Definitely | 394 | 89.5 | 1.7 | 425 | 85.9 | −1.7 | 2.91 |
NS
|
To some extent | 46 | 10.5 | −1.7 | 70 | 14.1 | 1.7 | | |
Enough time to discuss health | Definitely | 385 | 87.5 | 1.5 | 416 | 84 | −1.5 | 2.36 |
NS
|
To some extent | 50 | 11.4 | −1.5 | 73 | 14.7 | 1.5 | | |
No | 5 | 1.1 | −0.1 | 6 | 1.2 | 0.1 | | |
Treated with dignity and respect | Yes all of the time | 440 | 100 | 2.3 | 489 | 98.8 | −2.3 | 5.37 | ** |
Some of the time | 0 | 0 | −2.3 | 6 | 1.2 | 2.3 | | |
Provided answers for questions | Yes definitely | 370 | 84.1 | 0.8 | 406 | 82 | −0.8 | 6.69 |
NS
|
Yes to some extent | 51 | 11.6 | −1.5 | 74 | 14.9 | 1.5 | | |
No | 4 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 4 | 0.8 | −0.2 | | |
Did not need to | 11 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 11 | 2.2 | −0.3 | | |
No opportunity | 4 | 0.9 | 2.1 | 0 | | −2.1 | | |
Treatment explained & understood | Yes definitely | 332 | 75.5 | −0.8 | 384 | 77.6 | 0.8 | 18.5 | *** |
Yes to some extent | 35 | 8 | −2.5 | 64 | 12.9 | 2.5 | | |
No | 3 | 0.7 | −0.8 | 6 | 1.2 | 0.8 | | |
Did not want | 32 | 7.3 | 3 | 15 | 3 | −3 | | |
Not needed | 38 | 8.6 | 2 | 26 | 5.3 | −2 | | |
Results explained & understood | Yes definitely | 112 | 25.5 | 0.1 | 124 | 25.1 | −0.1 | 4.95 |
NS
|
Yes to some extent | 7 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 4 | 0.8 | −1.1 | | |
No response | 321 | 73 | −0.2 | 3 | 0.6 | 0.2 | | |
Still waiting | 0 | 0 | −1.6 | 364 | 7.35 | 1.6 | | |
Health prevention and promotion |
Blood sugars checked at PCC | Yes | 308 | 70 | 2.8 | 303 | 61.2 | −2.8 | 7.96 | ** |
No | 129 | 29.3 | −2.8 | 188 | 38 | 2.8 | | |
Not sure | 3 | 0.7 | −0.2 | 4 | 0.8 | 0.2 | | |
Received advice (weight) | Yes lose weight | 207 | 47 | −1.1 | 250 | 50.5 | 1.1 | 5.05 |
NS
|
Yes stay the same | 79 | 18 | 0.5 | 83 | 16.8 | −0.5 | | |
Yes gain weight | 21 | 4.8 | −1 | 31 | 6.3 | 1 | | |
No like advice | 71 | 16.1 | 2 | 58 | 11.7 | −2 | | |
No advice wanted | 62 | 14.1 | −0.3 | 73 | 14.7 | 0.3 | | |
Received advice (healthy eating) | Yes definitely | 143 | 32.5 | −2.1 | 193 | 39 | 2.1 | 21.82 | *** |
Yes to some extent | 94 | 21.4 | 1 | 93 | 18.8 | −1 | | |
Would like advice | 131 | 29.8 | 4 | 92 | 18.6 | −4 | | |
No advice wanted | 72 | 16.4 | −2.8 | 117 | 23.6 | 2.8 | | |
Satisfaction |
Satisfaction of using PCC | Yes completely | 388 | 88.2 | 0.8 | 428 | 86,5 | −0.8 | 2.98 |
NS
|
Yes to some extent | 52 | 11.8 | −0.5 | 64 | 12.9 | 0.5 | | |
No | 0 | 0 | −1.6 | 3 | 0.6 | 1.6 | | |
Socio-demographic characteristics
Gender and age
There was a total of 43.1% male and 56.1% female respondents. Chi-square analysis revealed that distribution was not equally distributed across the total sample by gender and region (X
2 = (2, N = 935) = 5.90, p < .01). Findings confirmed there were significantly more males from regions identified as ‘rural’ (ASR 2.4; p < .05) with significantly more females from regions identified as ‘urban’ (ASR 2.4; p < .05).
In relation to age distribution, chi-square analysis revealed that the distribution of age of respondents was not equally represented across both urban and rural regions (X
2 = (6, N = 935) = 10.66, p < .05). There were significantly fewer ‘older’ respondents (60 years+) from rural regions (ASR −2.4; p < .05) compared to urban.
Education and income
Respondents from rural regions were more likely to have a higher level of education compared to those from urban regions (X
2 = (4, N = 935) = 13.26, p < .01). Specifically, those residing in urban areas were significantly more likely to have left education at 17–18 years old (ASR 3.2; p < .001) compared to rural areas where respondents were more likely to have left education at 19 years and older (ASR 2.3; p < .05). Furthermore, those from rural areas were significantly more likely to earn more income compared to those from urban areas (X
2 = (3, N = 935) = 18.64, p < .001). Chi square analysis revealed that those residing in rural areas were significantly more likely to earn SAR 3000–15,000 (p < .01) compared to those from urban areas who were significantly more likely to earn SAR 3000 or less (ASR 3.9; p < .001).
Health status
There was no association by region (urban vs. rural) and health status (X
2 = (4, N = 935) = 1.84, p > .05). The majority of respondents rated their health as either very good (rural; 53%, urban; 54.3%) or good (rural; 33%, urban; 30.7%) with only a minority rating their health as poor.
Use of services
There was no significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and seeing a doctor (X
2 = (2, N = 935) = 0.89, p > .05) with most respondents stating that they have not had an appointment with their doctor in the past 12 months (rural; 100%, urban; 99.8%). Likewise, there was no significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and being referred to a specialist (X
2 = (2, N = 935) = 3.07, p > .05) with all respondents stating that they have not been referred to a specialist in the past 12 months. In relation to medical investigations, there was a significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and having a blood test (X
2 = (3, N = 935) = 7.96, p > .01). The findings confirmed that respondents from rural regions were significantly more likely to have a blood test (ASR 2.8; p < .01) compared to those from urban regions (ASR −2.8; p < .01).
Organisational factors
There was no significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and seeing their GP on time (X
2 = (2, N = 935) = 0.89, p > .05) with nearly all the respondents stating that they did not have to wait at all to see their doctor. Moreover, there was no significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and receiving blood test results on time (X
2 = (4, N = 935) = 6.33, p > .05).
There was no significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and if clinic hours negatively impacted on respondents seeing their doctor (X
2 = (3, N = 935) = 0.66, p > .05), with most respondents stating that opening hours was not an issue. There was a significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and wanting extra opening days (X
2 = (5, N = 935) = 17.67, p < .001) and times (X
2 = (6, N = 935) = 28.75, p < .001). The findings confirmed that respondents from urban regions were significantly more likely to want the centre to open early mornings (ASR 4.7; p < .001), with those from rural regions most likely to want the centre to open for extra days (ASR 3.6, p < .001).
In relation to the distance from patients’ residence to the primary care centre, there was a significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and distance posing an issue for attending the primary care centre (X
2 = (2, N = 935) = 32.87, p < .001). These findings suggested that distance was significantly more likely to present a problem to those residing in rural regions (ASR 5.7, p < .001) compared to those from urban regions (ASR −5.7, p < .001).
There was a significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and the cleanliness of the PCC (X
2 = (5, N = 935) = 42.43, p < .001) and ease of moving around with mobility (X
2 = (4, N = 935) = 12.16, p < .01). Respondents from rural regions were significantly more likely to state that the PCC was not very clean (ASR 4.4, p < .001) and not at all clean (ASR 3.7, p < .001) compared to those from urban regions who were significantly more likely to state the PCC is very clean (ASR 4, p < .001). Mobility appeared to be an issue for those who resided in a rural region. For example, significantly more people from urban regions stating it is very easy to get around (ASR 3.1, p < .001) compared to those from regions areas who were more likely to state it was only ‘fairly easy’ (ASR 3.1, p < .001).
There was no significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and help understanding Arabic (X
2 = (3, N = 935) = 1.48, p > .05), with most respondents stating that understanding Arabic was not an issue.
Financial
Respondents were asked if they have had to pay for prescribed medicines in the past 12 months. Findings confirmed there was no significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and payment for prescriptions (X
2 = (2, N = 935) = 1.31, p > .05), with many respondents stating that they have not had to pay for medicines.
Service provider-patient communication
There was no significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and whether the respondent’s doctor listened carefully (X
2 = (2, N = 935) = 2.91, p > .05), provided enough time to discuss health issues (X
2 = (3, N = 935) = 2.36, p > .05) and provided answers for questions (X
2 = (2, N = 935) = 6.69, p > .05) and satisfactorily explained investigative test results (X
2 = (4, N = 935) = 4.95, p > .05). Most respondents viewed the doctor favourably across all factors.
However, there were significant differences noted for ‘being treated with dignity and respect’ (X
2 = (2, N = 935) = 5.37, p < .001) and ‘treatment explained and understood’ (X
2 = (5, N = 935) = 18.5, p < .01). For example, respondents from rural areas felt that their doctor treated them with dignity and respect ‘all of the time’ (ASR 2.3; p < .01) compared with urban respondents who were significantly more likely to state ‘only some of the time’ (ASR 2.3; p < .01). However, in relation to communication relating to treatment, urban respondents were more significantly likely to state treatment was explained well and was well understood (ASR 2.5 p < .01) compared to those from the rural areas.
Service provision
There was no significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and receiving advice related to weight (X
2 = (2, N = 935) = 5.05, p > .05). However, there were significant differences found for blood sugars being checked (X
2 = (3, N = 935) = 7.96, p < .01) and receiving advice relating to healthy eating (X
2 = (4, N = 935) = 21.82, p < .001). The findings confirmed respondents from rural regions were more likely to have their blood sugars checked (ASR 2.8, p < .01). However, respondents from urban regions were significantly more likely to ‘definitely’ receive advice relating to healthy eating (ASR 2.1; p < .05), with those from rural regions less likely to receive advice but significantly more likely to want advice (ASR 4; p < .001).
Overall satisfaction
Respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction of using the PCC. There was no significant relationship between the region someone resides in (urban vs. rural) and satisfaction (X
2 = (3, N = 935) = 2.98, p > .05), with the majority of respondents completely satisfied.