ArticleHuman resources for health2025
The equivalent value (EV)-based workload assessment of primary healthcare workers in Beijing, China.
Article in Human resources for health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuantitative methods for estimating the workload of primary healthcare (PHC) workers are essential for improving the performance of PHC institutions. However, measuring the workload of PHC workers is challenging due to the diverse and complex range of services covered by PHC. This study aims to use an equivalent value (EV)-based approach to assess the workload of PHC workers and inform policymakers about the current workload burden in Beijing, China.
methodsThe EV-based workload assessment system was designed by three main steps: identifying the list of essential PHC service items provided by PHC workers, quantifying the EV of each service item, and calculating the corresponding workload for PHC workers and community health centers (CHCs). The study included 18 CHCs, which were divided into three groups based on population density and topography: Group I (eight urban CHCs), Group II (six CHCs in semi-mountainous areas), and Group III (four CHCs in mountainous areas). Data were collected from local health information system, which automatically collected real-time service volume data for 500 PHC service items at 18 CHCs in the sample district in Beijing from 2017 to 2021.
resultsThis study identified 503 essential PHC service items and defined their EVs. The theoretical full-capacity workload per PHC worker was 6024 EVs, serving as the base workload. The actual annual workload per PHC worker was 7240.0 EVs during 2017-2021. The base workload per budgeted position for the three types of CHCs was 6468.6 EVs for Group I, 5268.5 EVs for Group II, and 5038.7 EVs for Group III. Compared with the actual workload of 7702.3 EVs, 6568.3 EVs, and 5979.0 EVs in each group, respectively, all PHC workers in the sample district were overburdened during the study period.
conclusionsThe EV-based method provides a feasible solution for comprehensively assessing the workload of publicly funded PHC institutions in other regions. This study offers valuable insights to help local policymakers understand the workload burden of PHC workers, objectively evaluate their performance, and guide future health workforce planning.
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.