ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
How to evaluate long-term care insurance policy based on policy tools and PMC index model: evidence from pilot cities in China.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Institutionalizing family care responsibility in China's multilevel medical security system: evidence from long-term care insurance policy texts through a Confucian care ethics lens.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating long-term care insurance policies in China: an integrated analysis of policy instruments and PMC index model.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To address the risk of disability arising from population aging, the long-term care insurance (LTCI) policy in China has been progressively piloted and expanded. This study aims to examine the tool combination and strengths and weaknesses of the LTCI policy through a textual quantitative analysis of policies issued in 29 pilot cities, thereby providing a reference for refining the policy framework. Methods: Seventy-nine LTCI policies were analyzed based on the two-dimensional analytical framework regarding policy tools and policy ratings. Policy texts were coded and analyzed according to the connotative elements of supply-, environment- and demand-based policy tools, while policy ratings with strengths and weaknesseswere analyzed according to the Policy Modeling Consistency (PMC) index model. Results: LTCI policies of the 29 pilot cities all showed that the use of environment-based policy tools accounted for more than 70%, and supply- and demand-based policy tools ranged from 10 to 16%. The mean of the PMC index for the 79 policies was 7.701, with low scores across variables such as policy timeliness, policy level, and incentive and constraint, and an overall policy rating of good. Among these, the policies issued by the second batch of pilot cities had the highest PMC index value of 7.781. Conclusion: Pilot cities were over-utilizing environment-based policy tools and under-utilizing supply- and demand-based policy tools, which can be attributed to the reliance on environmental shaping during the policy pilot phase. LTCI policies of pilot cities can promote the development and improvement of the LTCI system, but there is still room for refinement in terms of policy authority, timeliness, coverage, and incentive measures. LTCI policies of the second batch of pilot cities were rated relatively higher, with higher-rated policies making more even use of various policy tools.
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.