ArticleJournal of global health2025
The efficiency and productivity-changing trend of PHCIs since the 2009 health reform in China based on a three-stage DEA and Malmquist Productivity Index.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. 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 spatial effects and influencing factors of inter-provincial health resource allocation efficiency in China.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Comprehensive evaluation of primary health care service capacity in China based on TOPSIS and RSR methods.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In China, most primary health care institutes (PHCIs) support ground-level medical services which are essential to residents' health levels. The Chinese government implemented a health reform in 2009 to strengthen PHCIs through increased fiscal inputs. However, how efficiently these inputs were converted into PHCIs' services remains unclear. We aimed to examine the efficiency of PHCIs' medical services and investigate if any changes occurred following the implementation of the health reform. Methods: We aggregated data from PHCIs from Hainan's 18 districts (2011-21), treating those from the same district as one decision-making unit (DMU). We used three-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) to assess the efficiencies of these PHCIs, adjusting the approach for environmental factors, managerial ineffectiveness, and statistical errors potentially arising from the background variability of measured data that deviates from the input and output values, allowing all DMUs to be compared in a homogeneous environment. We used the adjusted efficiency scores to evaluate the efficiency of PHCIs in Hainan each year and the Malmquist Productivity Index (MPI) to explore the productivity change of PHCIs over time. Results: After adjusting for environmental factors between 2011-21, technical efficiency (TE) decreased from 0.825 to 0.745, pure technical efficiency (PTE) increased from 0.936 to 0.954, and scale efficiency (SE) decreased from 0.883 to 0.783. Seven districts had full PTE (1.0) and two districts had full TE (1.0) after adjustment. The mean MPI from 2011 to 2021 was 0.9430, indicating a 5.7% decrease in PHCIs' efficiency. After excluding the low productivity index possibly influenced by COVID-19 (2019 to 2021), PHCIs' efficiency decreased by 0.49%, with a mean MPI of 0.9951. Conclusions: The efficiency of PHCIs in Hainan has declined slightly since the health reform. Low level of scale efficiency posed a significant impact on the overall efficiency of the medical services in PHCIs. Among potential inefficient technological performances, future policy formulation might focus more on the imbalanced allocation of resources in less-developed regions and PHCIs' lack of attractiveness to local patients.
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.