Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37715162›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Evaluating the efficiency of primary health care institutions in China: an improved three-stage data envelopment analysis approach.

Wanmin Su, Yatian Hou, Mengge Huang, Jiamian Xu, Qingfeng Du, Peixi Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wanmin SuGeneral Practice Center, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Foshan, 528244, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Yatian HouSchool of Nursing and Health, Henan University, Kaifeng, 475004, Henan, People's Republic of China.
Mengge HuangSchool of Nursing and Health, Henan University, Kaifeng, 475004, Henan, People's Republic of China.
Jiamian XuGeneral Practice Center, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Foshan, 528244, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Qingfeng DuGeneral Practice Center, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Foshan, 528244, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. dqf1689@smu.edu.cn.
Peixi WangGeneral Practice Center, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Foshan, 528244, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. peixi001@163.com.
Henan University · CNThird Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University · CN

Funding

the Foshan Chinese Medicine Field First Pilot Science and Technology Research Special Project 2020001005585the National Key Research and Development Program 2020YFC2006400
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary health care (PHC) institutions are key to realizing the main functions of the health care system. Since the new health care reform in 2009, the Chinese government has invested heavily in PHC institutions and launched favorable initiatives to improve the efficiency of such institutions. This study is designed to gauge the efficiency of PHC institutions by using 2012-2020 panel data covering 31 provinces in China.

methodsThis study applied an improved three-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) model to evaluate the efficiency of PHC institutions in China. Unlike the traditional three-stage DEA model, the input-oriented global super-efficiency slack-based measurement (SBM) DEA model is used to calculate the efficiency in the first and third stages of the improved three-stage DEA model, which not only allows the effects of environmental factors and random noise to be taken into account but also deal with the problem of slack, super-efficiency and the comparability of interperiod efficiency values throughout the efficiency measurement.

resultsThe results show that the efficiency of PHC institutions has been overestimated due to the impact of external environmental factors and random noise. From 2012 to 2020, the efficiency of PHC institutions displayed a downward trend. Moreover, there are significant differences in the efficiency of PHC institutions between regions, with the lowest efficiency being found in the northeast region. The efficiency of PHC institutions is significantly affected by residents' annual average income, per capita GDP, population density, the percentage of the population aged 0-14, the percentage of the population aged 65 and older, the number of people with a college education and above per 100,000 residents, and the proportion of the urban population.

conclusionsSubstantial investment in PHC institutions has not led to the expected efficiency gains. Therefore, more effective measures should be taken to improve the efficiency of PHC institutions in China based on local conditions. This study provides a new analytical approach to calculating the efficiency of PHC institutions, and this approach can be applied to efficiency evaluation either in other fields or in other countries.

Indexed as

Asian PeopleGovernmentChinaHealth Care ReformHumansPrimary Health CareChinaEfficiency measurementExternal environment factorsGlobal benchmarking techniquePrimary health care institutionsSuper-efficiency SBM DEA modelThree-stage DEA model

Identifiers

PMID37715162
PMCPMC10503195
OpenAlexW4386787916

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.