| Literature DB >> 25359153 |
Huan Liu1,2, Qi Wang3, Zuxun Lu4, Junan Liu5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Assembly has pledged to achieve universal reproductive health (RH) coverage by 2015. Therefore, China has been vigorously promoting the equalisation of basic public health services (i.e. RH services). The floating population (FP) is the largest special group of internal migrants in China and constitutes the current national focus. However, gaps exist in the access of this group to RH services in China.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25359153 PMCID: PMC4219102 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-014-0502-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Educational level, income, and occupation assignments
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| ≥4000 | University or above | Administrative institutions or enterprises | 5 |
| 3000 ~ 3999 | Senior middle school or polytechnic school | Businessmen | 4 |
| 2000 ~ 2999 | Junior middle school | Service industries | 3 |
| 1000 ~ 1999 | Elementary school | Retirees with retired wages | 2 |
| <1000 | Other else | Awaiting job assignment/laid-off workers | 1 |
Demographic characteristics and SES of FP and RP
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| <0.001* | ||
| 18–24 | 73 (16.1) | 55 (06.9) | |
| 25–36 | 222 (49.0) | 345 (43.5) | |
| 37–50 | 158 (34.9) | 394 (49.6) | |
|
| 0.501 | ||
| Male | 111 (24.5) | 209 (26.3) | |
| Female | 342 (75.5) | 585 (73.7) | |
|
| 0.001* | ||
| Married | 84 (18.5) | 93 (11.7) | |
| Unmarried | 369 (81.5) | 701 (88.3) | |
|
| 0.168 | ||
| No | 408 (90.1) | 734 (92.4) | |
| Yes | 45 (09.9) | 60 (07.6) | |
|
| <0.001* | ||
| Not involved | 177 (39.1) | 129 (16.2) | |
| Involved | 276 (60.9) | 665 (83.8) | |
|
| 0.001* | ||
| Not involved | 354 (78.1) | 551 (69.4) | |
| Involved | 99 (21.9) | 243 (30.6) | |
|
| <0.001* | ||
| Low | 87 (19.2) | 50 (06.3) | |
| Middle | 290 (64.0) | 522 (65.7) | |
| High | 76 (16.8) | 222 (28.0) | |
|
| 3.40 ± 4.01 | 4.56 ± 4.58 | 0.011* |
*P ≤0.05 indicates a statistical significance.
Level of RH knowledge and skills among FP and RP
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.002* | ||
| Good | 158 (34.9) | 349 (44.0) | |
| Middle | 203 (44.8) | 328 (41.3) | |
| Poor | 92 (20.3) | 117 (14.7) | |
|
| <0.001* | ||
| Good | 231 (51.0) | 486 (61.2) | |
| Middle | 167 (36.9) | 274 (34.5) | |
| Poor | 55 (12.1) | 34 (04.3) | |
|
| 0.007* | ||
| Good | 181 (40.0) | 381 (48.0) | |
| Middle | 228 (50.3) | 363 (45.7) | |
| Poor | 44 (09.7) | 50 (06.3) | |
|
| 0.001* | ||
| Good | 92 (20.3) | 205 (25.8) | |
| Middle | 241 (53.2) | 445 (56.0) | |
| Poor | 120 (26.5) | 144 (18.1) | |
|
| <0.001* | ||
| Good | 82 (18.1) | 173 (21.8) | |
| Middle | 209 (46.1) | 403 (50.8) | |
| Poor | 162 (35.8) | 218 (27.5) | |
|
| <0.001* | ||
| Good | 86 (19.0) | 180 (22.7) | |
| Middle | 213 (47.0) | 428 (53.9) | |
| Poor | 154 (34.0) | 186 (23.4) | |
|
| <0.001* | ||
| Good | 186 (41.1) | 417 (52.5) | |
| Middle | 217 (47.9) | 328 (41.3) | |
| Poor | 50 (11.0) | 49 (06.2) | |
|
| <0.001* | ||
| Good | 187 (41.3) | 432 (54.4) | |
| Middle | 212 (46.1) | 300 (37.8) | |
| Poor | 54 (11.9) | 62 (07.8) | |
|
| 0.016* | ||
| Good | 165 (36.4) | 342 (43.1) | |
| Middle | 209 (46.1) | 353 (44.5) | |
| Poor | 79 (17.4) | 99 (12.5) | |
|
| <0.001* | ||
| Good | 217 (47.9) | 469 (59.1) | |
| Middle | 181 (40.0) | 276 (34.8) | |
| Poor | 55 (12.1) | 49 (06.2) | |
|
| 0.056 | ||
| Yes | 173 (38.2) | 348 (43.8) | |
| No | 280 (61.8) | 446 (56.2) |
*P ≤0.05 indicates a statistical significance.
Mean (mean ± std) of times that subjects utilise FPS, grouped by service providers
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Hospitals | 0.57 ± 1.145 | 0.46 ± 0.986 | 0.079 |
| MCHB | 0.39 ± 0.929 | 0.32 ± 0.845 | 0.206 |
| CHC | 0.67 ± 1.299 | 0.48 ± 0.930 | 0.006* |
| FPSC | 1.87 ± 2.915 | 1.73 ± 2.530 | 0.364 |
| Total | 3.51 ± 4.758 | 2.99 ± 4.044 | 0.050* |
*P ≤0.05 indicates a statistical significance.
Social determinants of FPS use of FP and RP
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| <0.001* | <0.001* | ||
| Female | 1 | 1 | ||
| Male | 0.208(0.108 ~ 0.401) | 0.208(0.108 ~ 0.401) | ||
|
| 0.001* | 0.001* | ||
| Married | 1 | 1 | ||
| Unmarried | 0.267(0.120 ~ 0.596) | 0.267(0.120 ~ 0.596) | ||
|
| 0.459 | 0.459 | ||
| High | 1 | 1 | ||
| Middle | 1.600(0.744 ~ 3.441) | 1.600(0.744 ~ 3.441) | ||
| Low | 1.692(0.673 ~ 4.255) | 1.692(0.673 ~ 4.255) | ||
|
| <0.001* | <0.001* | ||
| No | 1 | 1 | ||
| Yes | 3.246(1.683 ~ 6.260) | 3.246(1.683 ~ 6.260) | ||
|
| 0.655 | 0.655 | ||
| Poor | 1 | 1 | ||
| Middle | 1.240(0.359 ~ 4.280) | 1.240(0.359 ~ 4.280) | ||
| Good | 1.582(0.445 ~ 5.617) | 1.582(0.445 ~ 5.617) | ||
|
| <0.001* | <0.001* | ||
| No | 1 | 1 | ||
| Yes | 3.113(1.920 ~ 5.048) | 3.113(1.920 ~ 5.048) | ||
|
| 0.015* | 0.015* | ||
| Poor | 1 | 1 | ||
| Middle | 7.183(1.790 ~ 28.821) | 7.183(1.790 ~ 28.821) | ||
| Good | 5.303(1.227 ~ 22.918) | 5.303(1.227 ~ 22.918) | ||
|
| <0.001* | <0.001* | ||
| Poor | 1 | 1 | ||
| Middle | 2.837(1.396 ~ 5.767) | 2.837(1.396 ~ 5.767) | ||
| Good | 4.981(2.395 ~ 10.359) | 4.981(2.395 ~ 10.359) | ||
|
| 0.049* | 0.049* | ||
| No | 1 | 1 | ||
| Yes | 2.141(1.002 ~ 4.572) | 2.141(1.002 ~ 4.572) | ||
|
| 0.949(0.523 ~ 1.722) | 0.863 | 0.949(0.523 ~ 1.722) | 0.863 |
*P ≤0.05 indicates a statistical significance.