The aim of this study was to find out the utilization rate and pattern of primary health care services, and the process and outcomes of primary care consultations of the general population in Hong Kong, and whether having a family doctor would make any difference.

The study objectives were to determine

1. the rates and pattern of utilization of different primary health care services and self-care
2. Patient self-reported outcomes (global rating on change in health, satisfaction and patient enablement) of primary care consultations;
3. the process of care in consultations including drug and non-drug managements, investigations, preventive care and referrals;
4. the effect of having a regular family doctor on service utilization rate and pattern, health promotion practice, and process and outcomes of primary care consultations.

Study Design: A Cross-sectional general population survey and a longitudinal study (12-weeks follow up)

Method: Two phases, corresponding to Summer and Winter, respectively, of cross-sectional telephone survey on the Hong Kong general population using a structured questionnaire to collect information on the choice primary care doctors, illness rates, primary care service utilization rates and self-reported process and outcomes of consultations. A longitudinal study for 12 weeks was carried out on a sub-sample of the cross-sectional study subjects to collect data to cross-validate cross-sectional data. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to determine whether there was any difference in service utilization rates, process and outcomes among people using different types of primary care doctors.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Written consent to study

Exclusion Criteria:

• Non-residential numbers
• Inability to communicate in Cantonese, Putonghua or English
• Refusal to telephone interview
• No contact after 5 attempts

5174 eligible households were contacted by telephone but 1532 refused to be interviewed and 494 did not complete the interview. 3148 (60.8%) subjects, with 1616 and 1532 in the first and second phases, respectively, completed the cross-sectional survey. 1131 people (480 by additional telephone sampling) were invited to the longitudinal study but only 708 eventually agreed to take part and 327 returned the diaries (all by completion). 319 subjects had complete cross-sectional and longitudinal data for the final analysis.