ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Comprehensive evaluation of primary health care service capacity in China based on TOPSIS and RSR methods.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- Dynamic evaluation and continuous improvement model of pharmaceutical administration based on DPSIR-TOPSIS.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- A study on performance evaluation of surgical departments in tertiary public hospitals based on the fuzzy combination-DEA method.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Pathways for enhancing service capability of primary healthcare institutions: a dynamic qualitative comparative analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- How to enhance primary healthcare capacity? Evidence from Chinese provinces through a configurational lens.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Primary health institutions form the foundation of China's three-tiered medical and health service system in both urban and rural settings, shouldering the critical role of delivering basic medical and healthcare services to the populace. Gaining insight into the capacity of primary health care services in China post the 2009 New Health Reform is of paramount importance for further safeguarding public health and advancing health equity. Methods: Using national data from the China Health Statistics Yearbook from 2009 to 2022, we constructed an evaluation system with 14 indicators across three dimensions: health resource input, health service efficiency, and health service output. We employed an entropy-weighted Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Rank-Sum Ratio (RSR) method and fuzzy combination evaluation to objectively assess PHC capacity and its constituent parts. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the comprehensive ranking results. The data analysis was meticulously executed using the R4.4.2 software. Results: The overall comprehensive evaluation score showed a general upward trend, peaking in 2022. However, dimensional analysis revealed a stark divergence: the "Health Resource Input" dimension improved steadily over the period, while the "Health Service Efficiency" dimension showed a clear declining trend, with the most efficient years being at the beginning of the study period. Conclusion: China's PHC capacity growth from 2009 to 2022 has been primarily driven by a massive expansion in resources, which masks a persistent and worrying decline in service efficiency. Our objective, multi-dimensional analysis reveals a critical need for a policy pivot from simple resource accumulation to strategic performance optimization. Future efforts must focus on improving the operational efficiency of existing assets and enhancing the quality of care to ensure sustainable and high-value primary health care for the population.
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.