Sian Meryl Griffiths
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Research Subjects
Sian Meryl Griffiths has a total of 226 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Martin Chi Sang Wong
The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine the Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR China
15 shared publications - Samuel Yeung-Shan Wong
The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
12 shared publications - Harry Hao-Xiang Wang
School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China
10 shared publications - Vincent Chi Ho Chung
Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong
8 shared publications - Eliza Lai-Yi Wong
JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
7 shared publications - Xiaolin Wei
School of Public Health and Primary Care, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
6 shared publications
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 1 March 2021
- Published by Elsevier in Integrative Medicine Research
- Vol. 10 (1) , 100469
Traditional and complementary medicine for promoting healthy ageing in WHO Western Pacific Region: Policy implications from utilization patterns and current evidence
- 1 March 2021
- Published by Elsevier in Integrative Medicine Research
- Vol. 10 (1) , 100469
Open AccessTraditional and complementary medicine for promoting healthy ageing in WHO Western Pacific Region: Policy implications from utilization patterns and current evidence
- Open Access
- 21 November 2019
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Health Services Research
- Vol. 19 (1) , 1-11
What is the long term impact of voucher scheme on primary care? Findings from a repeated cross sectional study using propensity score matching
Background: Vouchers are increasingly used as a demand-side subsidy to reduce financial hardship and improve quality of services. Elderly Healthcare Voucher Scheme has been introduced by the Hong Kong Government since 2009 to provide subsidy to elderly aged 65 and above to visit ten different types of private primary care providers for curative, preventive and chronic disease management. Several enhancements have been made over the past few years. This paper (as part of an evaluation study of this unique healthcare voucher scheme) aims to assess the long term impact of the voucher scheme in encouraging the use of primary care services. Methods: Two rounds of cross-sectional survey among elderly in Hong Kong were conducted in 2010 and 2016. Propensity score matching and analysis were used to compare changes in perception and usage of vouchers over time. Results: 61.5% of respondents in 2016 agreed “the scheme encourages me to use more private primary care services”, a significant increase from 36.2% in 2010. Among those who agreed in 2016, the majority thought the voucher scheme would encourage them to use acute services (90.3%) in the private sector, rather than preventive care (40.3%) and chronic disease management (12.2%). Respondents also reported that their current usual choice of care was visiting “both public and private doctors” (61.9%), representing a significant increase (up from 48.4%) prior to their use of voucher. Conclusions: The voucher scheme has encouraged the use of more private care services, particularly acute services rather than disease prevention or management of chronic disease. However, there needs to be caution that the untargeted and open-ended nature of voucher scheme could result in supply-induced demand which would affect long term financial sustainability. The dual utilization of health services in both the public and private sector may also compromise continuity and quality of care. The design of the voucher needs to be more specific, targeting prevention and chronic disease management rather than unspecified care which is mainly acute and episodic in order to maximize service delivery capacity as a whole for equitable access in universal health coverage and to contribute to a sustainable financing system.
- 21 November 2019
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Health Services Research
- Vol. 19 (1) , 1-11
Open AccessWhat is the long term impact of voucher scheme on primary care? Findings from a repeated cross sectional study using propensity score matching
Background: Vouchers are increasingly used as a demand-side subsidy to reduce financial hardship and improve quality of services. Elderly Healthcare Voucher Scheme has been introduced by the Hong Kong Government since 2009 to provide subsidy to elderly aged 65 and above to visit ten different types of private primary care providers for curative, preventive and chronic disease management. Several enhancements have been made over the past few years. This paper (as part of an evaluation study of this unique healthcare voucher scheme) aims to assess the long term impact of the voucher scheme in encouraging the use of primary care services. Methods: Two rounds of cross-sectional survey among elderly in Hong Kong were conducted in 2010 and 2016. Propensity score matching and analysis were used to compare changes in perception and usage of vouchers over time. Results: 61.5% of respondents in 2016 agreed “the scheme encourages me to use more private primary care services”, a significant increase from 36.2% in 2010. Among those who agreed in 2016, the majority thought the voucher scheme would encourage them to use acute services (90.3%) in the private sector, rather than preventive care (40.3%) and chronic disease management (12.2%). Respondents also reported that their current usual choice of care was visiting “both public and private doctors” (61.9%), representing a significant increase (up from 48.4%) prior to their use of voucher. Conclusions: The voucher scheme has encouraged the use of more private care services, particularly acute services rather than disease prevention or management of chronic disease. However, there needs to be caution that the untargeted and open-ended nature of voucher scheme could result in supply-induced demand which would affect long term financial sustainability. The dual utilization of health services in both the public and private sector may also compromise continuity and quality of care. The design of the voucher needs to be more specific, targeting prevention and chronic disease management rather than unspecified care which is mainly acute and episodic in order to maximize service delivery capacity as a whole for equitable access in universal health coverage and to contribute to a sustainable financing system.
- Open Access
- 1 December 2018
- Published by Elsevier in The Lancet
- Vol. 392 (10164) , 2518-2519
Forgotten needs of children left behind by migration
- 1 December 2018
- Published by Elsevier in The Lancet
- Vol. 392 (10164) , 2518-2519
Open AccessForgotten needs of children left behind by migration
- 1 May 2018
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health
- Vol. 158, 64-65
Migration and health in the world: a global public health perspective
- 1 May 2018
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health
- Vol. 158, 64-65
Migration and health in the world: a global public health perspective
- 1 October 2015
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health
- Vol. 129 (10) , 1326-1334
Defining migration and its health impact in China
- 1 October 2015
- Published by Elsevier in Public Health
- Vol. 129 (10) , 1326-1334
Defining migration and its health impact in China
- Open Access
- 1 June 2015
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Health Services Research
- Vol. 15 (1) , 504
What are the similarities and differences in structure and function among the three main models of community health centers in China: a systematic review
There are three major models of primary care providers (Community Health Centers, CHCs) in China, i.e., government managed, hospital managed and privately owned CHCs. We performed a systematic review of structures and health care delivery patterns of the three models of CHCs. Studies from relevant English and Chinese databases for the period of 1997–2011 were searched. Two independent researchers extracted data from the eligible studies using a standardized abstraction form. Methodological quality of included articles was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). A total of 13 studies was included in the final analysis. Compared with the other two models, private CHCs had a smaller health workforce and lower share of government funding in their total revenues. Private CHCs also had fewer training opportunities, were less recognized by health insurance schemes and tended to provide primary care services of poor quality. Hospital managed CHCs attracted patients through their higher quality of clinical care, while private CHCs attracted users through convenience and medical equipment. Our study suggested that government and hospital managed CHCs were more competent and provided better primary care than privately owned CHCs. Further studies are warranted to comprehensively compare performances among different models of CHCs.
- 1 June 2015
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Health Services Research
- Vol. 15 (1) , 504
Open AccessWhat are the similarities and differences in structure and function among the three main models of community health centers in China: a systematic review
There are three major models of primary care providers (Community Health Centers, CHCs) in China, i.e., government managed, hospital managed and privately owned CHCs. We performed a systematic review of structures and health care delivery patterns of the three models of CHCs. Studies from relevant English and Chinese databases for the period of 1997–2011 were searched. Two independent researchers extracted data from the eligible studies using a standardized abstraction form. Methodological quality of included articles was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). A total of 13 studies was included in the final analysis. Compared with the other two models, private CHCs had a smaller health workforce and lower share of government funding in their total revenues. Private CHCs also had fewer training opportunities, were less recognized by health insurance schemes and tended to provide primary care services of poor quality. Hospital managed CHCs attracted patients through their higher quality of clinical care, while private CHCs attracted users through convenience and medical equipment. Our study suggested that government and hospital managed CHCs were more competent and provided better primary care than privately owned CHCs. Further studies are warranted to comprehensively compare performances among different models of CHCs.