Japan's health system is well known for achieving one of the world's highest life expectancy with universal health coverage. However, the country now faces challenges of a rapidly aging population and changes in patterns and burden of disease. Primary care is an important component of a well‐functioning health system. In Japan, primary care services are provided in both the community and hospital settings. The distinction between primary and secondary care may not always be clear. This review is based on the framework from the 2015 WHO publication on primary care systems in Europe. Our aim is to describe the journey of primary care in Japan, with its past, present, and future as a valuable addition to the academic English literature. We also hope that this article would inspire readers outside of Japan who might face similar issues in their respective countries.

We found that patient experience of primary care in Japan was inversely associated with bypassing a primary care gatekeeper to seek care at higher-level healthcare facilities, such as hospitals. Our findings suggest that primary care providers' efforts to improve patient experience should help to ensure appropriate use of healthcare services under loosely regulated gatekeeping systems; further studies are warranted.

No abstract

ObjectivesThe primary objective of this study was to develop the Japanese version of the Patient Centred Assessment Method (PCAM) and its user guide. The secondary objective was to examine the validity and reliability in the primary care setting.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingThree family physician teaching clinics located in urban residential areas in Tokyo, Japan.ParticipantsPatients who were aged 20 years or older, and who had an appointment with physicians at the three participating clinics.Main outcome measuresPatient complexity measured by PCAM and complexity/burden level measured by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).ResultsAlthough confirmatory factor analysis using a model described in a previous study revealed that the indices did not meet the criteria for good fit, exploratory factor analysis revealed a new three-factor structure of ‘Personal well-being,’ ‘Social interaction’ and ‘Needs for care/service.’ Cronbach’s alpha of PCAM was 0.86. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between PCAM scores and VAS scores were 0.51 for complexity (p<0.001) and 0.41 for burden (p<0.001). There were 42 patients (14.3% of total patients) with PCAM scores greater than its mean of 16.5 but with complexity VAS scores less than its mean of 20.8.ConclusionsThe Japanese version of PCAM and its user guide were developed through Japanese translation and cultural adaptation by cognitive debriefing. PCAM is a valid and reliable tool to assess patient complexity in the primary care settings in Japan. Additionally, although the correlation between total PCAM scores and complexity/burden as assessed by VAS was moderate, PCAM can more precisely identify patient complexity than skilled physician’s intuition.

Background Rural-urban health care disparities are an important topic in health services research. Hence, developing valid and reliable tools to measure rurality is needed to support high quality research. However, Japan, has no index to measure rurality for health care research. In this study, we conducted a systematic scoping review to identify the important factors and methodological approaches to consider in a rurality index to inform the development of a rurality index for Japan. Methods For our review, we searched six bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHIL, ERIC, Web of Science and the Grey Literature Report) and official websites of national governments such as Government and Legislative Libraries Online Publications Portal (GALLOP), from 1 January 1989 to 31 December 2018. We extracted relevant variables used in the development of rurality indices, the formulas used to calculate indices, and any measures for reliability and validity of these indices. Results We identified 17 rurality indices from 7 countries. These indices were primarily developed to assess access to health care or to determine eligibility for incentives for health care providers. Frequently used factors in these indices included population size/density and travel distance/time to emergency care or referral centre. Many indices did not report reliability or validity measures. Conclusions While the concept of rurality and concerns about barriers to access to care for rural residents is shared by many countries, the operationalization of rurality is highly context-specific, with few universal measures or approaches to constructing a rurality index. The results will be helpful in the development of a rurality index in Japan and in other countries.