Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29402260›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2018

Equity and efficiency of medical service systems at the provincial level of China's mainland: a comparative study from 2009 to 2014.

Jingmei Ding, Xuejun Hu, Xianzhi Zhang, Lei Shang, Min Yu, Huoliang Chen

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jingmei DingDepartment of health services, The Fourth Military Medical University, 169 West of Changle Road, Xincheng District, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Xuejun HuDepartment of health services, The Fourth Military Medical University, 169 West of Changle Road, Xincheng District, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Xianzhi ZhangDepartment of health services, The Fourth Military Medical University, 169 West of Changle Road, Xincheng District, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. zxztj2007@fmmu.edu.cn.
Lei ShangDepartment of statistics, The Fourth Military Medical University, 169 West of Changle Road, Xincheng District, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Min YuInstitution of health services, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, 27 Taiping Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China. yumin002@hotmail.com.
Huoliang ChenDepartment of health services, The Fourth Military Medical University, 169 West of Changle Road, Xincheng District, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe astonishing economic achievements of China in the past few decades have remarkably increased not only the quantity and quality of medical services but also the inequalities in health resources allocation across regions and inefficiency of the medical service delivery.

methodsA descriptive analysis was used to compare the inequities in inputs and outputs of the provincial medical service systems, a non-radial super-efficiency data envelopment analysis model was then used to estimate the efficiency, and a regression analysis of the panel data was used to explore the determinants.

resultsThe inputs and outputs of most provincial medical service systems increased gradually from 2009 to 2014. Overall, the eastern region allocated more human and capital resources than the other two regions, and produced more than 50% of the total outpatient and emergency room visits, whereas the western region produced more inpatient services (about 30% of the total volume of inpatient services) according to the distribution of the population. The average efficiency scores of the provincial medical systems in China's mainland were 0.895, 0.927, 0.929, 0.963, 0.977 and 0.968 from 2009 to 2014, with a slight average improvement of 1.60%. The efficiency score of each provincial medical service system varied greatly from one another: Tibet (1.475 ± 0.057) performed extremely well, whereas several others including Heilongjiang (0.579 ± 0.001) performed poorly. Furthermore, the proportion of high-class medical facilities was negatively associated with efficiency, whereas the proportion of the vulnerable population, the per capita Gross Domestic Product, the proportion of the illiterate population and the improvement of primary health care had positive effects on efficiency.

conclusionInequity in health resources allocation and service provision existed across the regions, but not all the gaps have begun to narrow since 2009. The difference of efficiency was great among provincial medical service systems but minor across regions, and the score changed very little over time. More importantly, the central region held the lowest average efficiency score in the past 6 years, while the western region held the largest average efficiency score at the first 5 years, which should receive enough attention of the government and decision-makers. In practice, efficiency was related to many complicated factors, indicating that the improvement of efficiency is a complex and iterative process that requires the strong cooperation of many sectors.

Indexed as

Efficiency, OrganizationalHealth EquityChinaDelivery of Health CareHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Care RationingHealth Care ReformHumansRegional Health PlanningDeterminantsEfficiencyHealth resourcesInequityMedical service system

Identifiers

PMID29402260
PMCPMC5799902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.