ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Regional and patient-level determinants of endoscopic utilization in rural healthcare: a multi-level analysis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hypertension management in transition: gains, gaps, and growing challenges in a high-altitude multi-ethnic region of China (2019-2024).Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Epidemiology of diagnosed inflammatory bowel disease in Taiwan population from 2011 to 2021: a population-based study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Rural-urban disparities in colorectal cancer screening in United States: Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition analysis of BRFSS data.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Associations among healthcare insurance, tumor-node-metastasis stage and cancer survival: More to be understood.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Despite numerous studies on endoscopic services in urban settings, tailored assessments in rural healthcare remain limited, creating a gap in our understanding of resource-constrained environments. To address this gap, this study innovatively applied the Andersen Behavioral Model to systematically quantify endoscopic examination uptake and identify both patient-level (e.g., occupation, health history) and region-level (e.g., infrastructural challenges, socioeconomic indicators) factors influencing service utilization in rural China. Methods: We employed a multi-level logistic regression model with random intercepts to account for intraregional correlation and fixed effects for individual predictors. A multi-stage stratified random sampling approach was employed across 6 prefectures, yielding a sample of 1118 patients. We initially used descriptive statistics to summarize basic sample characteristics. Univariate analysis was then conducted to identify potential factors associated with endoscopic examination utilization. To further quantify these associations, we applied single-level and multi-level logistic regression model to account for potential regional effects and provide more robust analysis. Results: Of the 1,118 surveyed patients, 62.3% underwent endoscopic examinations, and among these, 77.9% received services at county-level institutions. In single-level binary logistic regression, region, occupation, household size, history of gastritis/esophagitis, and lesion location emerged as significant predictors ( Conclusions: Our findings underscore the importance of addressing regional disparities through targeted resource allocation and localized health education programs to improve endoscopic service uptake among rural populations. These insights can inform policy interventions aimed at early cancer detection and optimized healthcare delivery in resource-limited settings.
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.