| Literature DB >> 28862682 |
Jingya Zhang1, Senlin Lin2, Di Liang3, Yi Qian4, Donglan Zhang5, Zhiyuan Hou6.
Abstract
There have been obstacles for internal migrants in China in accessing local public health services for some time. This study aimed to estimate the utilization of local public health services and its determinants among internal migrants. Data were from the 2014 and 2015 nationally representative cross-sectional survey of internal migrants in China. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to estimate the relationship between socioeconomic, migration, and demographic characteristics and public health services utilization. Our results showed that internal migrants in more developed eastern regions used less public health services. Those with higher socioeconomic status were more likely to use public health services. The years of living in the city of residence were positively associated with the utilization of public health services. Compared to migration within the city, migration across provinces significantly reduced the probability of using health records (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.86-0.90), health education (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.94-1.00), and health education on non-communicable diseases (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89-0.95) or through the Internet (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.99). This study concludes that public health services coverage for internal migrants has seen great improvement due to government subsidies. Internal migrants with lower socioeconomic status and across provinces need to be targeted. More attention should be given to the local government in the developed eastern regions in order to narrow the regional gaps.Entities:
Keywords: China; health education; health records; migrant; public health
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28862682 PMCID: PMC5615539 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14091002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Characteristics of the respondents in National Internal Migrants Dynamic Monitoring Survey (NIMDMS), 2014 and 2015.
| Characteristics | 2014, N (%) | 2015, N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 117,624 (58.55) | 109,300 (53.06) |
| Female | 83,273 (41.45) | 96,689 (46.94) |
| Age (year) * | 34.66 (9.40) | 36.29 (10.64) |
| Marital status | ||
| Single | 47,997 (23.89) | 43,521 (21.13) |
| Married | 152,899 (76.11) | 162,468 (78.87) |
| Monthly income (RMB) * | 3721.86 (5439.44) | 4077.82 (4873.15) |
| Education | ||
| Primary school or below | 27,911 (13.89) | 31,336 (15.21) |
| Middle school | 105,874 (52.70) | 104,005 (50.49) |
| High school | 41,280 (20.55) | 44,774 (21.74) |
| College degree or above | 25,832 (12.86) | 25,874 (12.56) |
| Employment status | ||
| Unemployed | 24,537 (12.21) | 36,443 (17.69) |
| Employed | 82,099 (40.87) | 78,902 (38.30) |
| Self-employed | 94,257 (46.92) | 90,641 (44.00) |
| Hukou status | ||
| Rural Hukou | 170,870 (85.05) | 174,691 (84.81) |
| Urban Hukou | 30,027 (14.95) | 31,298 (15.19) |
| Years of living in the city of residence * | 5.06 (4.78) | 5.17 (4.95) |
| Causes of migration | ||
| Seeking jobs | 177,045 (88.13) | 173,829 (84.39) |
| Family members following migrants or other reasons | 23,852 (11.87) | 32,160 (15.61) |
| Migration range | ||
| Across provinces | 102,371 (50.96) | 102,781 (49.90) |
| Across cities within a province | 60,933 (30.33) | 62,503 (30.34) |
| Across counties within a city | 37,593 (18.71) | 40,705 (19.76) |
| Currently living area | ||
| Urban | 140,460 (69.92) | 146,691 (71.21) |
| Suburban | 60,437 (30.08) | 59,298 (28.79) |
| N | 200,937 | 206,000 |
Note: * Mean, SD. RMB: renminbi.
Utilization of local public health services among internal migrants in NIMDMS, 2014 and 2015.
| Public Health Services | 2014 (%) | 2015 (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Establishment of health records | 22.98 | 29.10 |
| Accessing health education | 70.14 | 90.70 |
| Content of health education accessed | ||
| (1) Prevention of infectious diseases | 95.98 | 94.38 |
| (2) Prevention of non-communicable diseases | 66.54 | 80.86 |
| Methods for accessing health education | ||
| (1) Face-to-face | 99.26 | 99.12 |
| (2) Internet | 43.04 | 64.97 |
Figure 1Percentage of internal migrants who had established health records by province, 2015 (%).
Figure 2Percentage of internal migrants who had accessed health education by province, 2015 (%).
Figure 3Percentage of internal migrants who had received health education on non-communicable diseases (NCD) prevention by province, 2015 (%).
Figure 4Percentage of internal migrants who had received health education through the Internet by province, 2015 (%).
Determinants of local public health services utilization, the contents and channels of health education.
| Variables | Total Sample | Subsample Using Health Education | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Establishment of Health Records | Using Health Education | NCD Content | Internet Method | |
| Monthly income (1000 RMB) | 1.00 (1.00–1.01) ** | 1.01 (1.00–1.01) *** | 1.01 (1.01–1.01) *** | 1.02 (1.02–1.02) *** |
| Education (referred to primary school or below) | ||||
| Middle school | 1.17 (1.13–1.20) *** | 1.34 (1.30–1.38) *** | 1.16 (1.12–1.19) *** | 1.44 (1.40–1.48) *** |
| High school | 1.24 (1.20–1.28) *** | 1.58 (1.52–1.63) *** | 1.34 (1.30–1.39) *** | 1.72 (1.67–1.77) *** |
| College degree or above | 1.37 (1.32–1.42) *** | 1.86 (1.78–1.94) *** | 1.74 (1.67–1.81) *** | 2.13 (2.06–2.21) *** |
| Employment status (referred to unemployed) | ||||
| Employed | 1.16 (1.01–1.24) *** | 1.26 (1.18–1.35) *** | 1.01 (0.94–1.07) | 1.19 (1.12–1.26) *** |
| Self-employed | 1.11 (1.04–1.18) ** | 1.17 (1.09–1.25) *** | 1.12 (1.05–1.19) *** | 1.13 (1.07–1.20) *** |
| Urban Hukou | 1.09 (1.07–1.12) *** | 1.06 (1.03–1.10) *** | 1.12 (1.09–1.15) *** | 1.13 (1.10–1.16) *** |
| Years of living in the city of residence | 1.02 (1.02–1.02) *** | 1.01 (1.00–1.01) *** | 1.01 (1.01–1.01) *** | 1.00 (1.00–1.00) |
| Causes of migration (referred to seeking jobs) | ||||
| Family members following migrants or other reasons | 1.09 (1.05–1.13) *** | 0.96 (0.92–1.00) * | 1.10 (1.05–1.14) *** | 0.97 (0.94–1.00) |
| Migration range (referred to across counties within a city) | ||||
| Across provinces | 0.88 (0.86–0.90) *** | 0.97 (0.94–1.00) * | 0.92 (0.89–0.95) *** | 0.96 (0.94–0.99) ** |
| Across cities within a province | 0.98 (0.96–0.90) | 1.00 (0.97–1.04) | 0.96 (0.93–0.98) ** | 0.92 (0.89–0.94) *** |
| Living in urban areas | 1.26 (1.23–1.29) *** | 1.34 (1.31–1.37) *** | 1.39 (1.36–1.42) *** | 1.07 (1.05–1.09) *** |
| Female | 1.14 (1.12–1.16) *** | 1.30 (1.27–1.32) *** | 1.08 (1.06–1.10) *** | 0.90 (0.89–0.92) *** |
| Age (10 years) | 1.01 (1.00–1.02) * | 0.92 (0.91–0.93) *** | 1.05 (1.04–1.06) *** | 0.73 (0.72–0.74) *** |
| Currently married | 1.35 (1.32–1.39) *** | 1.47 (1.44–1.51) *** | 0.88 (0.86–0.90) *** | 0.97 (0.95–0.99) * |
| 2015 | 1.55 (1.53–1.58) *** | 4.88 (4.78–4.98) *** | 2.27 (2.23–2.31) *** | 2.99 (2.94–3.04) *** |
| Observations | 352945 | 352945 | 284490 | 284488 |
Notes: Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were shown. Significance level: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.