ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluation of coupling and coordination, obstacle diagnosis, and optimization pathways of medical-preventive integration in primary healthcare institutions in Hebei Province from 2017 to 2024.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical-prevention integration constitutes a core governance strategy for advancing the Healthy China initiative, with primary healthcare institutions serving as the foundational delivery platforms for its implementation. To systematically evaluate the development level, spatiotemporal evolution, and key constraining factors of medical-prevention integration at the primary level, this study takes all township health centers and community health service centers in Hebei Province as the research sample. Drawing on panel data from the Hebei Health Statistical Yearbook covering 2017-2024, an evaluation index system for the coupling and coordinated development of primary medical services and public health services was constructed and authoritatively validated using a modified Delphi method. Indicator weights were determined through the entropy method, and an integrated quantitative analytical framework was employed, incorporating the coupling coordination degree model, the relative development model, and the obstacle degree model. The results indicate that primary medical-prevention integration in Hebei Province exhibits a typical pattern of "high coupling but low coordination". Although medical and public health services have established a relatively stable institutional linkage, their overall coordinated development remains at a persistently low level, with medical services generally outperforming public health services. Township health centers demonstrate significantly higher composite development levels and coupling coordination degrees than community health service centers, forming a pronounced urban-rural dual structure in primary-level medical-prevention integration. Furthermore, substantial heterogeneity exists between the two types of institutions in terms of relative development structures and core obstacle factors. Lagging public health service capacity, along with misaligned financing and incentive mechanisms, constitutes the principal bottleneck constraining high-quality development of medical-prevention integration. By uncovering the underlying structural and institutional tensions within primary-level medical-prevention integration, this study provides robust empirical evidence and policy-relevant insights for optimizing integration strategies and advancing the construction of an integrated healthcare delivery system in Hebei Province and other comparable regions in China.
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.