↓ Skip to main content

Inequality in the distribution of health resources and health services in China: hospitals versus primary care institutions

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
222 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inequality in the distribution of health resources and health services in China: hospitals versus primary care institutions
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0543-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tao Zhang, Yongjian Xu, Jianping Ren, Liqi Sun, Chaojie Liu

Abstract

Equity is one of the major goals of China's recent health system reform. This study aimed to evaluate the equality of the distribution of health resources and health services between hospitals and primary care institutions. Data of this study were drawn from the China Health Statistical Year Books. We calculated Gini coefficients based on population size and geographic size, respectively, for the indicators: number of institutions, number of health workers and number of beds; and the concentration index (CI) for the indicators: per capita outpatient visits and annual hospitalization rates. The Gini coefficients against population size ranged between 0.17 and 0.44 in the hospital sector, indicating a relatively good equality. The primary care sector showed a slightly higher level of Gini coefficients (around 0.45) in the number of health workers. However, inequality was evident in the geographic distribution of health resources. The Gini coefficients exceeded 0.7 in the geographic distribution of institutions, health workers and beds in both the hospital and the primary care sectors, indicating high levels of inequality. The CI values of hospital inpatient care and outpatient visits to primary care institutions were small (ranging from -0.02 to 0.02), indicating good wealth-related equality. The CI values of outpatient visits to hospitals ranged from 0.16 to 0.21, indicating a concentration of services towards the richer populations. By contrast, the CI values of inpatient care in primary care institutions ranged from -0.24 to -0.22, indicating a concentration of services towards the poorer populations. The eastern developed region also had a high internal inequality compared with the other less developed regions. Significant inequality in the geographic distribution of health resources is evident, despite a more equitable per capita distribution of resources. Richer people are more likely to use well-resourced hospitals for outpatient care. By contrast, poorer people are more likely to use poorly-resourced primary care institutions for inpatient care. There is a risk of the emergence of a two-tiered health care delivery system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 172 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 57 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 13%
Social Sciences 16 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 13 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 65 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2019.
All research outputs
#15,451,618
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,544
of 1,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,294
of 310,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#29
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,918 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.