ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2018
Estimating benefit equity of government health subsidy in healthcare Services in Shandong Province, China: a cross-sectional study.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benefit equity of social health insurance in China and its provinces (2014-2020): implications for universal health coverage.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Technical efficiency and its convergence among village clinics in rural China: evidence from Shanxi Province.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- The Awareness and Attitude of Contracted Service Among General Medical Practitioners in Community Health Service Centers in Urban China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Elderly Health Inequality in China and its Determinants: A Geographical Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- The willingness of patients to make the first visit to primary care institutions and its influencing factors in Beijing medical alliances: a comparative study of Beijing's medical resource-rich and scarce regions.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Risk factors of stillbirth in rural China: A national cohort study.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGovernment health subsidy (GHS) is an effective tool to improve population health in China. Ensuring an equitable allocation of GHS, particularly among the poorer socio-economic groups, is a major goal of China's healthcare reform. The paper aims to explore how GHS was allocated across different socioeconomic groups, and how well the overall health system was performing in terms of the allocation of subsidy for different types of health services.
methodsData from China's National Health Services Survey (NHSS) in 2013 were used. Benefit incidence analysis (BIA) was applied to examine if GHS was equally distributed across income quintile. Benefit incidence was presented as each quintile's percentage share of total benefits, and the concentration index (CI) and Kakwani index (KI) were calculated. Health benefits from three types of healthcare services (primary health care, outpatient and inpatient services) were analyzed, separated into urban and rural populations. In addition, the distribution of benefits was compared to the distribution of healthcare need (measured by self-reported illness and chronic disease) across income quintiles.
resultsIn urban populations, the CI value of GHS for primary care was negative. (- 0.14), implying an allocation tendency toward poor region; the CI values of outpatient and inpatient services were both positive (0.174 and 0.194), indicating allocation tendencies toward rich region. Similar allocation pattern was observed in rural population, with pro-poor tendency of primary care service (CI = - 0.082), and pro-rich tendencies of outpatient (CI = 0.153) and inpatient services (CI = 0.203). All the KI values of three health services in urban and rural populations were negative (- 0.4991,-0.1851 and - 0.1651; - 0.482, - 0.247and - 0.197), indicating that government health subsidy was progressive and contributed to the narrowing of economic gap between the poor and rich.
conclusionsThe inequitable distribution of GHS in China exited in different healthcare services; however, the GHS benefit is generally progressive. Future healthcare reforms in China should not only focus on expanding the coverage, but also on improving the equity of distribution of healthcare benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.