Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35209916›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2022

Trends in disparities in healthcare utilisation between and within health insurances in China between 2008 and 2018: a repeated cross-sectional study.

Xiaoling Yan, Yuanli Liu, Min Cai, Qinqin Liu, Xueqin Xie, Keqin Rao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaoling YanSchool of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China.
Yuanli LiuSchool of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China.
Min CaiCenter for Health Statistics and Information, National Health Commission, Beijing, 100044, China.
Qinqin LiuCenter for Health Statistics and Information, National Health Commission, Beijing, 100044, China.
Xueqin XieCenter for Health Statistics and Information, National Health Commission, Beijing, 100044, China. xiexq@nhc.gov.cn.
Keqin RaoChina Health Economics Association, Beijing, 100191, China. raokq_cma@163.com.
National Health and Family Planning Commission · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFragmentation in China's social health insurance schemes and income gap have been recognised as important factors for the inequitable use of healthcare. This study assessed trends in disparities in healthcare utilisation between and within health insurances in China between 2008 and 2018.

methodsWe used data from the 2008, 2013, and 2018 China National Health Services Survey. Outpatient visit, inpatient admission and foregone inpatient care were chosen to measure healthcare utilisation and underutilisation by health insurances. Absolute differences and rate ratios were generated to examine disparities between and within health insurances, and changes in disparities were analysed descriptively. Pearson χ2 tests were used to test for statistical significance of differences.

resultsThe outpatient visit rate for respondents covered by the urban resident-based basic medical insurance scheme (URBMI) more than doubled between 2008 and 2018, increasing from 10.5% (9.7-11.2) to 23.5% (23.1-23.8). Inpatient admission rates for respondents covered by URBMI and the new rural cooperative medical scheme (NRCMS) more than doubled between 2008 and 2018, increasing by 7.2 (p < 0.0001) and 7.4 (p < 0.0001) percentage points, respectively. Gaps in outpatient visits and inpatient admissions narrowed across the urban employee-based basic medical insurance scheme (UEBMI), URBMI, and NRCMS through 2008 to 2018, and by 2018 the gaps were small. The rate ratios of foregone inpatient care between NRCMS and UEBMI fell from 0.9 (p > 0.1) in 2008 to 0.8 (p < 0.0001) in 2018. Faster increases in outpatient and inpatient utilisation and greater reductions in foregone inpatient care were observed in poor groups than in wealthy groups within URBMI and NRCMS. However, the poor groups within UEBMI, URBMI, and NRCMS were always more likely to forego inpatient care in comparison with their wealthy counterparts.

conclusionsRemarkable increases in healthcare utilisation of URBMI and NRCMS, especially among the poorest groups, were accompanied by improvements in inequality in healthcare utilisation across UEBMI, URBMI, and NRCMS, and in income-based inequality in healthcare utilisation within URBMI and NRCMS. However, the poor groups were always more likely to forego admission to hospital, as recommended by doctors. We suggest further focus on the foregoing admission care of the poor groups.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareInsurance, HealthChinaCross-Sectional StudiesHealthcare DisparitiesHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CareUrban PopulationHealthcare utilisationIncome-based inequitySocial health insuranceTrendsUtilisation disparity

Identifiers

PMID35209916
PMCPMC8876177
OpenAlexW4213449154

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.