ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Research on the impact of urban innovation on public health.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of public cultural participation on public health efficiency: empirical analysis from Chinese cities.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Does cultural service provision contribute to improving public health levels? Empirical evidence from 283 Chinese cities.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This article explores the impact of innovation on urban public health, with a particular focus on panel data from 15 sub-provincial cities in China. The study aims to provide scientific evidence for policymakers by analyzing how technological innovation affects urban public health levels. Methods: The study used a panel model for empirical analysis which based on panel data from 15 sub provincial cities across the country, using the number of doctors per 10,000 people and per capita financial medical and health expenditure as proxy variables for urban public health, and using the level of technological development as the core explanatory variable for regression analysis. Results: The research results show that: (1) for public health quantified by the number of doctors per 10,000 people in cities, innovation does not have a significant promoting effect on urban public health; (2) Compared to the number of doctors per 10,000 people in a region, the per capita financial expenditure on healthcare can better measure the level of urban public health; (3) Innovation has a significant impact on urban public health, measured by per capita fiscal expenditure on healthcare. Discussion: In order to transform technological innovation into a driving force for the development of urban public health, efforts must be made from multiple aspects. Currently, building a strong foundation for people's health relies on the support of science and technology, and enhancing innovation as a primary driving force is crucial. China urgently needs to improve the stability and competitiveness of its pharmaceutical industry and supply chain, break through key core technologies, and take the initiative in the future development of the pharmaceutical industry.
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.