Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34962956›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Assessing equity of the spatial distribution of primary health care facilities in Fuzhou City, China: A comprehensive method.

Ninglong You

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author.

Ninglong YouCollege of Landscape Architecture, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1569-4212

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is well known that equity assessment of the spatial distribution of primary health care facilities (PHCFs) is significant to optimize the allocation of health care resources and enhance the ability to react to public health emergencies, yet there is much discussion about the poor effectiveness of assessment for many cities due to the limitations of the insufficient ability of traditional data to reflect residents' demands, etc. In many cities where PHCFs are inequity distributed, this is urgently needed for the government.

methodsUsing Fuzhou City, China as a case study, we propose a comprehensive method for assessing the equity that consisting of two frameworks based on the Geographic Information System. The first framework is assessing resident demand based on daily demand and potential demand, and the second is assessing PHCFs supply based on road impedance. This method combines an index system based on multi-source data and a spatial matching analysis between resident demand and PHCFs supply based on the supply-demand disparity index.

resultsThe demand degree for the PHCFs and the supply degree of accessing the PHCFs of different residential areas differ to great extents. The equity of the spatial distribution of PHCFs shows well overall, but there is still a lack of equity in local areas. The number of the residential areas with the lowest equity, insufficient supply and oversupply accounted for 10.31% and 39.00% respectively; the former is mainly gathered in a concentrated form at the edge and in a scattered form inside, and the latter is distributed in the interior mostly in a concentrated manner.

conclusionThe key findings highlight several aspects of improving the layout of PHCFs such as strengthen an in-depth analysis on residents' demand. This study contributes to a more accurate equity assessment, and further improves the layout of health care facilities.

Indexed as

Health FacilitiesChinaHealth EquityLinear Models

Identifiers

PMID34962956
PMCPMC8714018

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.