ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2025
Enhancing Health Productivity in China: A Decade of Measurement and Regional Insights (2010-2020).
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact mechanisms and spatial effects of new quality productive forces on healthcare resource allocation in China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
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: Enhancing health productivity is a pressing priority to promote the Healthy China Initiative. This study aims to assess the efficiency of health production and to analyze the disparities in efficiency across regions. Methods: A multi-dimensional approach is used to assess the health efficiency of 31 provinces in China over the period 2010 to 2020. The analysis incorporates the conventional BCC model, the super-efficient SBM model, and the Malmquist index model within the framework of DEA modeling. And using the Dagum Gini coefficient to further analyze the differences in health productivity of China. Results: The BCC model calculated China's comprehensive health production efficiency in 2020 to be 0.732. The SBM model assessed the average health productivity value among China's provinces in 2020, revealing Guangdong as the highest (2.276) and Qinghai as the lowest (0.351). The average value of China's Malmquist Index from 2010 to 2020 was 1.002, indicating a slight overall improvement in health production efficiency. Furthermore, the score of technological change and technological efficiency change in five provinces were more than 1. Gini coefficient had obvious downward trend from 2010 to 2020, and there was a lower level in the northeastern (0.055) and eastern (0.0989) regions. Conclusion: Though the whole health productivity of China has been on the rise, health production efficiency in many provinces still needs to be improved. Inequities in health services provision persist, particularly between the eastern and western regions. The government should play a significant role in establishing standardized criteria for regular evaluation of health production efficiency levels. It's suggested to utilize digital health technologies to facilitate the exchange of information among different regions in China, thereby fostering collaborative efforts to improve overall health outcomes.
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.