ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025
Public Preferences Regarding Equitable Healthcare Rationing Across Gender Identities in China.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public opinion on public healthcare rationing regarding gender identity is crucial for democratic policymaking because of public concern regarding sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression (SOGIE). Based on rationality theory, rationally equitable rationing depends on equity orientations and prioritizing public interest over self-interest. Specifically, equity orientations include those toward equality, need, personal contribution, and social contribution. To project public preference for public healthcare rationing, this study involved 744 Chinese people in a web survey. These participants indicated their preferences for public healthcare rationing and self-interest, public interest, and equity orientations, including those based on contribution, equality, and need. Regression analysis based on the rationality framework showed that public healthcare rationing that was equal across SOGIE identities was predominantly preferable, based on rational equity. In contrast, public healthcare rationing without considering SOGIE was less preferable, and rationing unequally across gender identities was not preferred. These results imply that affirmative and egalitarian rationing is the most rationally equitable approach.
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.