ArticleHuman resources for health2025
Determinants of equitable public health human resource allocation in China: a multidimensional analysis using RIF-I-OLS decomposition.
Article in Human resources for health, 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.
- The effect of integration of medical and preventive services on the prevention and control of public health emergencies in China.Frontiers in public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid economic development and urbanization in China have improved population health outcomes, but exacerbated inequalities in the allocation of public health human resources (PHHR). Existing studies largely rely on static measures and offer limited insights into the mechanisms driving these disparities. This study systematically identifies and quantifies the determinants influencing public health workforce allocation in China, aiming to provide empirical evidence to guide policy interventions.
methodsThis study analyzed the allocation of PHHR across 31 Chinese provinces from 2018 to 2022, employing four inequality indices: Gini coefficients (Gini), concentration index (CI), absolute Gini (AGini), and absolute concentration index (ACI). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and bivariate correlation analyses were used to assess temporal and regional variations. The recentered influence function-index-ordinary least squares (RIF-I-OLS) method was applied to decompose these inequality indices. This approach quantified the contributions of key factors, including the illiteracy rate among the population aged 15 years and above, government health expenditure, number of professional public health institutions (PPHI), mortality rate from Class A and B infectious diseases (IDs), and life expectancy (LE), while distinguishing between characteristic effects and coefficient effects.
resultsBetween 2018 and 2019, inequity in PHHR allocation increased (Gini: 0.3792-0.3844; CI 0.0215-0.0495). In contrast, from 2019 to 2022, allocation equity improved (Gini: 0.3715; CI 0.0279). A greater number of PPHIs, a lower mortality rate of class A and B IDs, and longer LE helped mitigate inequalities, whereas a lower illiteracy rate among the population aged ≥ 15 years and increased governmental health expenditure exacerbated disparities. Inequality in PHHR allocation during 2018-2019 was primarily driven by characteristic effects, whereas in 2021-2022, coefficient effects became dominant, underscoring the role of institutional and systemic factors.
conclusionsWhile the equity of PHHR allocation in China has shown modest improvement, structural and institutional factors remain key determinants of lingering inequities. This highlights the need for targeted policies to optimize the distribution of the public health workforce.
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.