| Literature DB >> 26286033 |
Cheng Jin1,2, Jianquan Cheng3, Yuqi Lu4,5, Zhenfang Huang6,7, Fangdong Cao8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The inequities in healthcare services between regions, urban and rural, age groups and diverse income groups have been growing rapidly in China. Equal access to basic medical and healthcare services has been recognized as "a basic right of the people" by Chinese government. Spatial accessibility to healthcare facilities has received huge attention in Chinese case studies but been less studied particularly at a county level due to limited availability of high-resolution spatial data. This study is focused on measuring spatial accessibility to healthcare facilities in Deqing County. The spatial inequity between the urban (town) and rural is assessed and three scenarios are designed and built to examine which scenario is instrumental for better reducing the spatial inequity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26286033 PMCID: PMC4545554 DOI: 10.1186/s12939-015-0195-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Equity Health ISSN: 1475-9276
Fig. 1Location of the study area - Deqing County and its towns/townships
Comparisons between county hospital, town/township hospital and village clinic
| Indicator | County hospital | Town hospital | Village clinic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Categorya | More at class 2 and few at class 1 | Class 3 | Not classified |
| Number of qualified doctors | >100 | 40-80 | 1-2(temporally working doctor allocated by a town hospital) |
| Number of registered nurses | >100 | 5-20 | 0 |
| Number of beds | >200 | 10-30 | 0 |
| Equipment | A full set including very expensive one for diagnosis and treatment | No large-size or advanced equipment | No basic ones, only by experiences |
| Operation | A majority of operations | Only easy-use and low-cost equipment | Not |
| Deqing County | 3 | 19 | 135 |
aHospitals in China are classified into three categories (1-highest, 2-middle and 3-lowest) according to national standard of hospital classification of 1989
Fig. 2Spatial distribution of all healthcare facilities
Fig. 3Road network in Deqing County
Fig. 4Spatial distribution of population at village committee level
Fig. 5Spatial distribution of residential buildings
Driving and walking speed values on highway networks and land cover
| Road class | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | substandard | Land cover | Hill |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Speed(km/h) | 80 | 60 | 40 | 30 | 20 | 5 | 3 |
| Timea (min) | 0.0375 | 0.05 | 0.075 | 0.1 | 0.15 | 0.6 | 1 |
a Time is the minutes travelling through a cell (50 x 50 m) in each road class and land cover
Fig. 6A work flowchart of the methodology
Fig. 7Spatial distribution of estimated population density
Fig. 8Travel time to the nearest county hospital
Weighting values of healthcare facilities between the three levels
| County hospital | Town/township hospital | Village clinic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total number of visitors | 2164520 | 1703132 | 421045 |
| Weighting values (W | 50.47 % | 39.71 % | 9.82 % |
Fig. 9Travel time to the health facilities at all levels
Comparisons between the three scenarios
| Items | Scenario one | Two | Three |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum(min) | 40.99 | 33.58 | 33.58 |
| Average(min) | 14.03 | 11.73 | 11.28 |
| Proportion of improved areas(%) | 29.68 | 98.89 | 98.99 |
| Proportion of declined areas(%) | 10.90 | 1.11 | 1.01 |
| Proportion of no-change areas(%) | 59.42 | 0 | 0 |
| Maximum declined(min) | 4.31 | 8.87 | 8.87 |
| Maximum increased(min) | 1.91 | 0.05 | 1.31 |
| Average improved(min) | 0.68 | 2.98 | 3.43 |
Fig. 10The updated travel time in scenario One
Fig. 11The updated travel time in scenario Two
Fig. 12The updated travel time in scenario Three