↓ Skip to main content

Challenges for the surgical capacity building of township hospitals among the Central China: a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Challenges for the surgical capacity building of township hospitals among the Central China: a retrospective study
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0766-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhong Li, Jian Yang, Yue Wu, Zijin Pan, Xiaoqun He, Boyang Li, Liang Zhang

Abstract

China's rapid transition in healthcare service system has posed considerable challenges for the primary care system. Little is known regarding the capacity of township hospitals (THs) to deliver surgical care in rural China with over 600 million lives. We aimed to ascertain its current performance, barriers, and summary lessons for its re-building in central China. This study was conducted in four counties from two provinces in central China. The New Rural Cooperative Medical System (NRCMS) claim data from two counties in Hubei province was analyzed to describe the current situation of surgical care provision. Based on previous studies, self-administered questionnaire was established to collect key indicators from 60 THs from 2011 to 2015, and social and economic statuses of the sampling townships were collected from the local statistical yearbook. Semi-structured interviews were conducted among seven key administrators in the THs that did not provide appendectomy care in 2015. Determinants of appendectomy care provision were examined using a negative binominal regression model. First, with the rapid increase in inpatient services provided by the THs, their proportion of surgical service provision has been nibbled by out-of-county facilities. Second, although DY achieved a stable performance, the total amount of appendectomy provided by the 60 THs decreased to 589 in 2015 from 1389 in 2011. Moreover, their proportion reduced to 26.77% in 2015 from 41.84% in 2012. Third, an increasing number of THs did not provide appendectomy in 2015, with the shortage of anesthesiologists and equipment as the most mentioned reasons (46.43%). Estimation results from the negative binomial model indicated that the annual average per capita disposable income and tightly integrated delivery networks (IDNs) negatively affected the amount of appendectomy provided by THs. By contrast, the probability of appendectomy provision by THs was increased by performance-related payment (PRP). Out-of-pocket (OOP) cost gap of appendectomy services between the two different levels of facilities, payment method, and the size of THs presented no observable improvement to the likelihood of appendectomy care in THs. The county-level health system did not effectively respond to the continuously increasing surgical care need. The surgical capacity of THs declined with the surgical patterns' simplistic and quantity reduction. Deficits and critical challenges for surgical capacity building in central China were identified, including shortage of human resources and medical equipment and increasing income. Moreover, tight IDNs do not temporarily achieve capacity building. Therefore, the reimbursement rate should be further ranged, and physicians should be incentivized appropriately. The administrators, policy makers, and medical staff of THs should be aware of these findings owing to the potential benefits for the capacity building of the rural healthcare 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 19%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 7%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Engineering 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 23 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 02 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,126,638
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#764
of 1,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,752
of 326,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#29
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,929 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 326,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.