↓ Skip to main content

Estimating benefit equity of government health subsidy in healthcare Services in Shandong Province, China: a cross-sectional study

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Estimating benefit equity of government health subsidy in healthcare Services in Shandong Province, China: a cross-sectional study
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0775-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenzhe Qin, Lingzhong Xu, Jiajia Li, Long Sun, Gan Ding, Hui Shao, Ningze Xu

Abstract

Government health subsidy (GHS) is an effective tool to improve population health in China. Ensuring an equitable allocation of GHS, particularly among the poorer socio-economic groups, is a major goal of China's healthcare reform. The paper aims to explore how GHS was allocated across different socioeconomic groups, and how well the overall health system was performing in terms of the allocation of subsidy for different types of health services. Data from China's National Health Services Survey (NHSS) in 2013 were used. Benefit incidence analysis (BIA) was applied to examine if GHS was equally distributed across income quintile. Benefit incidence was presented as each quintile's percentage share of total benefits, and the concentration index (CI) and Kakwani index (KI) were calculated. Health benefits from three types of healthcare services (primary health care, outpatient and inpatient services) were analyzed, separated into urban and rural populations. In addition, the distribution of benefits was compared to the distribution of healthcare need (measured by self-reported illness and chronic disease) across income quintiles. In urban populations, the CI value of GHS for primary care was negative. (- 0.14), implying an allocation tendency toward poor region; the CI values of outpatient and inpatient services were both positive (0.174 and 0.194), indicating allocation tendencies toward rich region. Similar allocation pattern was observed in rural population, with pro-poor tendency of primary care service (CI = - 0.082), and pro-rich tendencies of outpatient (CI = 0.153) and inpatient services (CI = 0.203). All the KI values of three health services in urban and rural populations were negative (- 0.4991,-0.1851 and - 0.1651; - 0.482, - 0.247and - 0.197), indicating that government health subsidy was progressive and contributed to the narrowing of economic gap between the poor and rich. The inequitable distribution of GHS in China exited in different healthcare services; however, the GHS benefit is generally progressive. Future healthcare reforms in China should not only focus on expanding the coverage, but also on improving the equity of distribution of healthcare benefits.

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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 20 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 22 39%
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 18 May 2018.
All research outputs
#20,494,940
of 23,058,939 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,877
of 1,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,003
of 329,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#45
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,058,939 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,930 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 329,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.