| Literature DB >> 28815169 |
Mostafa Qorbani1,2,3, Farshad Farzadfar3, Reza Majdzadeh4, Kazem Mohammad4, Abbas Motevalian1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to explore the technical efficiency (TE) of the Iranian rural primary healthcare (PHC) system for diabetes treatment coverage rate using the stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) as well as to examine the strength and significance of the effect of human resources density on diabetes treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Diabetes mellitus; Human resources; Stochastic frontier analysis; Technical efficiency
Year: 2017 PMID: 28815169 PMCID: PMC5556340 DOI: 10.1186/s40200-017-0312-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Diabetes Metab Disord ISSN: 2251-6581
Descriptive statistics of input and output variables in the SFA model for DM treatment coverage in rural areas of Iran, 2008
| Variable | Mean | 95%CI | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM treatment coverage (self-report) | 0.67 | 0.63–0.71 | 0.44 | 0.81 |
| Physician densitya | 0.29 | 0.26–0.32 | 0.18 | 0.52 |
| Behvarz densitya | 1.61 | 1.5–1.7 | 0.84 | 2.30 |
| Rural health center densitya | 0.13 | 0.11–0.14 | 0.08 | 0.19 |
| Wealth index | 0.004 | −0.35-0.35 | −1.96 | 1.66 |
| Urbanization rate | 0.66 | 0.6–0.7 | 0.50 | 0.95 |
| Median age | 24.5 | 23.8–25.3 | 19.6 | 28 |
aPer 1000 total population
Fig. 1DM treatment coveragein rural areas of Iran at provincial level, 2008
Coefficients of the SFA model for DM treatment coveragein rural areas of Iran, 2008
| Independent variable | Coefficients | 95%CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Production function | |||
| Behvarz density (per 1000 total population) | 0.50 | 0.29, 0.70 | <0.001 |
| Physician density (per 1000 total population) | 0.05 | −0.12,0.22 | 0.60 |
| Rural health center density (per 1000 total population) | −0.07 | −0.08,0.21 | 0.38 |
| Wealth Index | −0.51 | −7.2, 6.23 | 0.88 |
| Urbanization rate | −2.86 | −15.58,9.86 | 0.65 |
| Median age (years) | −17.27 | −43.86,9.32 | 0.20 |
| Constant | −0.47 | −0.74,-0.19 | 0.001 |
| Distribution of u and v | |||
| σ3 u | 0.15 | 0.11,0.20 | <0.001 |
| σ3 v | 0.06 | 0.03,0.08 | 0.35 |
| Number of observation: 31 | |||
| Wald x3 | 30.35 | <0.001 | |
DM treatment coverage and technical efficiency at national and provincial level in rural areas of Iran, 2008
| ID | Province | Number of rural total population | DM treatment coverage% | Efficiency % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Markazi | 408,630 | 77 | 98.28 |
| 2 | Kermanshah | 616,599 | 80 | 97.41 |
| 3 | East Azerbaijan | 410,522 | 79 | 97.04 |
| 4 | Fars | 1,578,334 | 81 | 97.03 |
| 5 | Qazvin | 297,505 | 77 | 95.66 |
| 6 | West Azerbaijan | 1,072,773 | 81 | 95.40 |
| 7 | Boshehr | 280,057 | 66 | 95.03 |
| 8 | Golestan | 833,255 | 70 | 94.40 |
| 9 | RazaviKhorasan | 1,752,463 | 65 | 93.42 |
| 10 | Ardabil | 477,219 | 74 | 93.91 |
| 11 | North Khorasan | 382,365 | 79 | 92.42 |
| 12 | Gilan | 1,044,515 | 73 | 92.16 |
| 13 | Mazandaran | 1,311,380 | 71 | 90.79 |
| 14 | Lorestan | 672,328 | 62 | 90.13 |
| 15 | Semnan | 120,825 | 81 | 90.06 |
| 16 | South Khorasan | 246,589 | 75 | 89.14 |
| 17 | Kohgiluyeh&Boyer-Ahmad | 350,286 | 57 | 88.16 |
| 18 | Khozestan | 1,229,588 | 67 | 87.72 |
| 19 | Zanjan | 395,989 | 49 | 87.30 |
| 20 |
| 942,249 | 48 | 86.69 |
| 21 | Hormozgan | 663,401 | 57 | 85.96 |
| 22 | Kurdestan | 611,689 | 63 | 85.46 |
| 23 | Hamadan | 724,877 | 50 | 85.35 |
| 24 | Alborz | 130,883 | 66 | 82.74 |
| 25 | Isfahan | 622,441 | 78 | 82.28 |
| 26 | Ilam | 209,650 | 44 | 80.01 |
| 27 | Qom | 48,870 | 66 | 79.04 |
| 28 | Yazd | 184,674 | 63 | 78.61 |
| 29 | Tehran | 395,202 | 66 | 76.86 |
| 30 | Kerman | 895,607 | 54 | 76.05 |
| 31 | Chaharmahal&Bakhtiari | 1,087,876 | 56 | 59.65 |
| ----- | National | 19,998,643 | 67 | 87.84 |
Fig. 2Technical efficiency of rural primary health care system for DM treatment coverage at provincial level in Iran, 2008