| Literature DB >> 23533480 |
Vincent C H Chung1, Polly H X Ma, Harry H X Wang, Jia Ji Wang, Lau Chun Hong, Xiaolin Wei, Samuel Y S Wong, Jin Ling Tang, Sian M Griffiths.
Abstract
In China's healthcare reform, community health centers (CHCs) are designed to take a pivotal role in providing primary care. Whilst about 20% of all outpatient care in China is delivered by the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) sector, hospitals, instead of CHCs, are major providers. Using current patterns of patient utilization this study aims to inform CHCs on how they may strengthen access to TCM services. Three thousand three hundred and sixty CHC patients from six cities within the urban Pearl Delta Region were enumerated using multistage cluster sampling. Fifty-two percent had visited herbalists within three months with a mean visit frequency of 1.50 times. Herbal treatments, which are cheaper than western medicines, were more popular amongst those who needed to pay out of pocket including the uninsured. Herbal medicines appeared to be an alternative for those who are underinsured. Acupuncturists and massage therapists were visited by smaller proportions, 6.58% and 5.98%, respectively, with a mean three-month visit of 0.27 and 0.26 times. Access was restricted by lack of social insurance coverage. Whilst increasing provision of TCM in CHCs might respond to patient demand, increasing insurance coverage for TCM needs to be evaluated using current evidence on safety and effectiveness.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23533480 PMCID: PMC3590637 DOI: 10.1155/2013/426360
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Demographic and health-related characteristics of respondents.
| Characteristics | Number of respondents |
|---|---|
| (%) | |
| Gender | |
| Male | 1423 (42.4%) |
| Female | 1933 (57.6%) |
| Household registry† | |
| Resident with Hukou | 1726 (51.4%) |
| Resident without Hukou | 1284 (38.2%) |
| Nonresident without Hukou | 349 (10.4%) |
| Education level | |
| Tertiary education or above | 828 (24.7%) |
| Secondary education | 1975 (58.9%) |
| Primary education or below | 551 (16.4%) |
| Household income (¥) | |
| <1000 | 272 (9.9%) |
| 1000–2000 | 903 (33.0%) |
| 2001–3000 | 708 (25.9%) |
| 3001–4000 | 333 (12.2%) |
| 4001–5000 | 235 (8.6%) |
| >5000 | 285 (10.4%) |
| Insurance status# | |
| Government sponsored medical care | 249 (7.5%) |
| UEBMI | 905 (27.1%) |
| URBMI | 707 (21.2%) |
| NCMS | 470 (14.1%) |
| Commercial insurance | 22 (0.7%) |
| Out of pocket | 982 (29.4%) |
| Self-perceived health status | |
| Excellent | 207 (6.2%) |
| Very good | 735 (21.9%) |
| Good | 886 (26.4%) |
| Fair | 1378 (41.0%) |
| Poor | 152 (4.5%) |
| No. of chronic diseases | |
| 0 | 2194 (65.3%) |
| 1 | 830 (24.7%) |
| 2 | 239 (7.1%) |
| 3 | 83 (2.5%) |
| 4 | 12 (0.4%) |
| 5 | 2 (0.1%) |
| Mean age (SD)* | 43.4 (17.05) |
*Data are presented as mean (SD).
†Hukou: household registration; resident with hukou: permanent resident. Resident without hukou: temporary resident without local household registration but lived in the city ≥6 months. Nonresident without hukou: temporary resident without local household registration and lived in the city <6 months.
#UEBMI: urban employee basic medical insurance; URBMI: urban resident basic medical insurance; NCMS: new cooperative medical scheme.
Association between TCM usage and demographic and health characteristics: multiple logistic regression analyses.
| TCM modalities | Herbalists | Acupuncturists | Massage therapists | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic characteristics | Adjusted OR (95% CI) |
| Adjusted OR (95% CI) |
| Adjusted OR (95% CI) |
|
| Gender | ||||||
| Male (reference) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| Female | 1.155 (.988, 1.351) | .070 | .822 (.603, 1.119) | .213 | .936 (.676, 1.297) | .692 |
| Age | 1.007 (1.000, 1.014) | .039 | 1.008 (.995, 1.021) | .255 | 1.007 (.993, 1.020) | .348 |
| Hukou status | ||||||
| Resident with Hukou (reference) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| Resident without Hukou | .870 (.714, 1.061) | .169 | .985 (.657, 1.478) | .943 | .851 (.551, 1.315) | .468 |
| Non-Resident without Hukou | .829 (.614, 1.119) | .221 | 1.432 (.807, 2.540) | .219 | .787 (.388, 1.594) | .505 |
| Education level | ||||||
| Tertiary education (reference) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| Secondary education | .764 (.622, .940) | .011 | .820 (.550, 1.223) | .331 | .802 (.532, 1.209) | .292 |
| Primary education | .783 (.575, 1.066) | .121 | .637 (.341, 1.190) | .157 | .550 (.284, 1.066) | .077 |
| Monthly household income | 1.005 (.947, 1.067) | .860 | 1.091 (.967, 1.232) | .157 | 1.040 (.919, 1.178) | .534 |
| Health insurance status | ||||||
| Government sponsored care (reference) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| Out of pocket | 1.507 (1.045, 2.174) | .028 | .411 (.215, .786) | .007 | .333 (.176, .631) | .001 |
| Urban employee basic medical insurance | 1.127 (.811, 1.567) | .476 | .506 (.291, .881) | .016 | .356 (.210, .601) | .000 |
| Urban resident basic medical insurance | 1.063 (.748, 1.509) | .734 | .542 (.297, .987) | .045 | .356 (.198, .641) | .001 |
| New cooperative medical scheme | 1.119 (.764, 1.637) | .565 | .498 (.253, .982) | .044 | .210 (.098, .452) | .000 |
| Self-reported health status | ||||||
| Good or above (reference) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| Fair | 1.020 (.864, 1.203) | .817 | .959 (.693, 1.327) | .802 | 1.189 (.843, 1.676) | .323 |
| Poor | 1.087 (.731, 1.617) | .680 | .196 (.047, .824) | .026 | .701 (.284, 1.734) | .442 |
| Number of chronic disease | ||||||
| 0 (reference) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| 1 | 1.174 (.960, 1.436) | .119 | 1.092 (.739, 1.614) | .658 | .927 (.605, 1.422) | .730 |
| 2 | 1.004 (.715, 1.410) | .982 | .692 (.333, 1.436) | .323 | .904 (.463, 1.766) | .767 |
| ≥3 | 1.178 (.728, 1.907) | .505 | 1.116 (.470, 2.648) | .804 | 1.533 (.717, 3.279) | .271 |
Figure 1Main reason for visiting in the latest consultation, stratified by treatment modalities.
Figure 2Perceived effectiveness of treatment received in the latest consultation episode, stratified by modalities.