ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2019
General practice for the poor and specialist services for the rich: inequality evidence from a cross-sectional survey on Hangzhou residents, China.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Medical specialists in LMICs: a systematic review and best-fit framework synthesis of the evidence on their roles and contribution to health systems.BMJ global health · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Dynamic effects of outpatient pooling scheme on socioeconomic inequality in healthcare utilization in China from 2011 to 2020.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Referral experiences of healthcare consumers: results from a cross-sectional study in urban slums in southeast Nigeria.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Establishment of an Evaluation Index System of Competencies for College Senior Students in General Practice Medicine in Anhui Province, China.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- Inequality in benefit distribution of reducing the outpatient cost-sharing: evidence from the outpatient pooling scheme in China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Study of Burden in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome at Global, Regional, and National Levels from 1990 to 2019.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Patient experience in community health services and first choice for medical attention: A cross-sectional study in Wuhan, China.PloS one · 2023Article
- "Why not ask the doctor?" Barriers in help-seeking for sexual problems among older adults in Poland.International journal of public health · 2020Article
- Strengthening medical specialisation policy in low-income and middle-income countries.BMJ global health · 2020Review
- Evaluating Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions on Chronic Low Back Pain Using Goal Attainment Scaling.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Article
- Socioeconomic Inequality in Health Outcomes Among the Elderly: Evidence from a Cross-Sectional Study in China.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInequalities in health care services are becoming an increasing concern in the world including in China. This study measured the income-related inequalities of residents in Hangzhou of China in access to general practice and specialist care and identified socioeconomic factors associated with such inequalities.
methodsA cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted on 1048 residents in ten urban communities in Hangzhou, China. The percentage and frequency of respondents visiting general practice (GP) and hospital specialist clinics over the past four weeks prior to the survey were estimated. Income-related inequalities in access to these services were measured by the concentration index. Logistic regression and Poisson regression models were established to decompose the contributions of socioeconomic factors (residency, income, education, marital status, and social health insurance) to the inequalities in the probability and frequency of accessing these services, respectively, after adjustment for the needs factors (age, sex and illness conditions).
resultsThe GP services were in favor of the poor, with a concentration index of - 0.0464 and - 0.1346 for the probability and frequency of GP visits, respectively. In contrast, the specialist services were in favor of the rich, with a concentration index of 0.1258 and 0.1279 for the probability and frequency of specialist visits, respectively. Income is the biggest contributor to the inequalities, except for the frequency of visits to specialists in which education played the greatest role.
conclusionsIncome-related inequalities in GP and specialist care are evident in China. Policy interventions should pay increasing attention to the emergence of a two-tier system, potentially enlarging socioeconomic disparities in health care services.
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.