Rashidian et al. Table 1: Health services utilization based on type pf service in 2003 Outpatient services No. % Governmental 395 58.5 Private 267 39.3 Charity 15 2.2 Total 677 100 Inpatient services No. 269 24 6 299 % 89 9 2 100 Our finding showed that 6% (42 individuals) could not get care despite that they felt the need to see health care providers. More than half of this group mentioned that they could not afford the cost of the services. Almost 5% of the individuals for whom medicines were prescribed, could not get all the med- icines. They reported cost of medicines (40%) and availability of the drugs ('could not find the drugs') (30%) as the main reasons for not obtaining all the prescribed medicines. In answering the question about the involvement of people in decision making about what healthcare to be given and where to re- ceive care, 44% choose "bad" or "very bad" and 26% rated it as "good or very good". Forty nine percent of respondents described their satisfaction with general performance of the health system as "very or fairly satisfied". The majority of the respondents (over 90%) rated all aspects of responsiveness as very im- portant or important: quality of basic amenities (98%), dignity (97.5%), prompt attention (96%) and communication (95%), followed by freedom of choice, and autonomy (92%) (Figure 1). Figure 2 shows the proportion of people reported responsiveness of inpatient services they received as "good or very good" in all domains. The best perform- ing domains were dignity and confidentiality (both at 78%). The worst performing domains were autonomy (62%) and quality of basic amenities (65%). The scores of outpatient service responsiveness domains are demonstrated in Table 2. The best performing do- mains were dignity and autonomy (90% and 87% re- spectively). Autonomy and quality of basic amenities (both 78%) received the lowest scores. We created a binary variable (those ranking re- sponsiveness as 'good' or 'very good' in one group, others as the other group) and then used Chi-Square test and compared the characteristics of the respond- ents such as sex, education, ethnicity, marital and so- cioeconomic status and provider variables including type of center and sex of provider. No significant social. Support dignity prom pt.attention 100 95 90 85 choice autonom y confidentiality quality of basic am entities com m uniction Fig. 1: Proportion of people rated responsiveness domains as "important" or " very important" 304 WWW.ircmj.com Vol 13 May 2011