| Literature DB >> 31071961 |
Yang Cao1, Feng Zhen2, Hao Wu3.
Abstract
Current research on the built environment and medical choice focuses mainly on the construction and optimization of medical service systems from the perspective of supply. There is a lack of in-depth research on medical choice from the perspective of patient demand. Based on the medical choice behaviour of patients with chronic diseases, this article identifies the spatial distribution and heterogeneity characteristics of medical choice and evaluates the balance between medical supply and demand in each block. On this basis, we explored the mechanism of patient preferences for different levels of medical facilities by considering the patient's socioeconomic background, medical resource evaluation, and other built environment features of the neighbourhood by referring to patient questionnaires. In addition to socioeconomic characteristics, the results show that public transportation convenience, medical accessibility, and medical institution conditions also have significant influences on patient preferences, and the impact on low-income patients is more remarkable. The conclusions of the study provide a reference for the promotion and optimization of the functions of urban medical resources and the guidance of relevant public health policies.Entities:
Keywords: Gaoyou; built environment; chronic disease; driving forces; medical choices
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31071961 PMCID: PMC6539171 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16091612
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Overall research framework.
Figure 2Location of Gaoyou and the study area.
Basic information of interviewees (n = 1139).
| Item | Group | Proportion (%) | Item | Group | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Less than 31 years old | 3.9 | Monthly household income | Below 3000 | 28.6 |
| 31–45 years old | 17.4 | 3000-5000 | 36.1 | ||
| 45–60 years old | 37.2 | 5000-8000 | 27.1 | ||
| above 60 years old | 41.5 | 8000 and above | 8.2 | ||
| Gender | Male | 62.5 | Medical insurance | No insurance | 52.5 |
| Female | 37.5 | Social medical insurance | 37.2 | ||
| Education level | Primary school and below | 37.2 | Commercial medical insurance | 10.3 | |
| Junior high school | 44.6 | Family Size | Two or below | 17.6 | |
| High school | 16.5 | Three | 33.5 | ||
| Bachelor degree and above | 1.7 | Four | 43.8 | ||
| Marital status | unmarried | 37.2 | Four and above | 5.1 | |
| married | 43.5 | Self-rated disease severity | Light | 33.6 | |
| Inconvenient to answer | 19.3 | General | 21.7 | ||
| Disease type | diabetes | 48.7 | Serious | 30.1 | |
| hypertension | 27.9 | Inconvenient to answer | 14.6 | ||
| hyperlipidemia | 38.9 | ||||
| Other chronic diseases | 54.5 |
The conditions of medical institutions and other built environment elements.
| Item | Group (Proportion) | Description |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Type | Village clinics (23.7%), township hospitals (27.1%), private clinics (12.4%), county-level and above medical institutions (36.6%) | Chinese medical institutions are divided into different levels based on their service population and radius. |
|
| ||
| Medical fee satisfaction | Satisfaction (47.2%); Dissatisfaction (52.8%) | A questionnaire form was used to obtain the subjective evaluation results of patients, which were divided into two categories: Satisfaction and dissatisfaction. |
| Medical service satisfaction | Satisfaction (53.1%); Dissatisfaction (46.9%) | |
| Medical environment satisfaction | Satisfaction (39.7); | |
|
| ||
| Public transportation convenience | Within 5 min (32.5%); 5–10 min (27.4%); 10–15 min (23.8%); more than 15 min (16.3%) (for public transport users) | We obtained the traffic environment around the patient’s residential area through questionnaires. Walking time from the patient’s place of residence to the common public transportation station. |
| Medical accessibility | Within 5 min (27.3%); 5–10 min (29.1%); 10–15 min (36.2%); more than 15 min (7.4%) | Public travel time required for patient’s usual medical treatment behaviour. |
Figure 3Nested decision tree for chronic disease medical choice.
Comparison of the goodness of fit among the three models.
| Model Type | Estimated Parameter Number | Log-Likelihood | AIC | BIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple logit model | 7 | −117.418 | 944.837 | 782.962 |
| Conditional multiple logit model | 12 | −110.635 | 825.269 | 766.798 |
| Nested multiple logit model | 12 | −35.482 | 645.965 | 483.434 |
AIC: Akaike information criterion, BIC: Bayesian information criterion.
Figure 4Residential agglomeration level (a) and medical supply level (b) in block units.
Basic information on medical institutions at different levels
| Type | Grade | Service Radius (Meter) | Number | Number of Serviced Blocks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| County-level and above hospital | 3 | 2000 m | 4 | 12 |
| Township-level hospital | 2 | 1500 m | 17 | 18 |
| Village-level clinic | 1 | 800 m | 23 | 32 |
Nine classifications for the medical supply and demand balance at the block scale.
| Supply and Demand | Local Medical Demand | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low Level | Medium Level | High Level | ||
| Local medical supply | Low level | Low level balance | Low supply—medium demand | Low supply—high demand |
| Medium level | Medium supply—low demand | Medium level balance | Medium supply—high demand | |
| High level | High supply—low demand | High supply—medium demand | High level balance | |
Figure 5The balance degree of medical supply-demand (a) and local medical choice level (b).
Nested multiple logit model results of the chronic disease patients’ chosen institutions (control group: Village clinic).
| Explanatory Variables | Township-Level Hospital | Private Clinic | County-Level and Above Hospital | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RC | SD | RC | SD | RC | SD | |
|
| ||||||
| Public transportation convenience (walking time to surrounding bus stops) | ||||||
| 5–10 min | −0.072 | 0.142 | 0.104 | 0.274 | 0.135 | 0.255 |
| 10–15 min | 0.036 | 0.085 | −0.096 | 0.158 | 0.094 * | 0.176 |
| More than 15 min | 0.067 * | 0.153 | −0.081 * | 0.155 | 0.046 ** | 0.113 |
| Medical accessibility (average travel time for daily medical treatment) | ||||||
| 5–10 min | 0.082 | 0.135 | 0.014 * | 0.035 | 0.023 ** | 0.132 |
| 10–15 min | 0.014 | 0.025 | −0.039 | 0.122 | 0.032 * | 0.113 |
| More than 15 min | −0.025 | 0.032 | −0.048 ** | 0.103 | 0.015 * | 0.096 |
|
| ||||||
| Age | ||||||
| 31–45 | 0.036 ** | 0.151 | 0.031 | 0.136 | −0.043 | 0.056 |
| 45–60 | 0.076 | 0.132 | −0.057 * | 0.194 | 0.132 ** | 0.226 |
| Above 60 | 0.107 ** | 0.256 | −0.135 | 0.226 | 0.105 | 0.172 |
| Sex (female) | 0.024 | 0.035 | 0.056 | 0.133 | 0.079 ** | 0.145 |
| Educational level | ||||||
| Primary school | −0.056 | 0.124 | 0.034 ** | 0.045 | −0.062 | 0.131 |
| Junior high school | −0.037 | 0.102 | 0.068 * | 0.125 | 0.076 | 0.158 |
| High school and above | 0.073 | 0.145 | −0.024 | 0.043 | 0.055 *** | 0.142 |
| Marital status (married) | 0.027 | 0.035 | 0.022 | 0.046 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Average monthly household income | ||||||
| 3000–5000 | 0.076 | 0.134 | 0.018 ** | 0.033 | 0.041 | 0.107 |
| 5000–8000 | 0.052 * | 0.182 | −0.034 | 0.107 | 0.046 ** | 0.072 |
| Above 8000 | 0.041 | 0.152 | −0.033 | 0.152 | 0.105 *** | 0.234 |
| Medical insurance | ||||||
| No insurance | 0.074 | 0.172 | 0.057 ** | 0.085 | 0.105 | 0.093 |
| Social medical insurance | 0.093 * | 0.131 | 0.047 | 0.092 | 0.133 ** | 0.243 |
| Commercial medical insurance | 0.062 | 0.152 | 0.042 | 0.093 | 0.072 * | 0.114 |
| The length of time since diagnosis | ||||||
| Half a year to one year | 0.073 * | 0.131 | 0.047 | 0.092 | 0.133 ** | 0.243 |
| One year to two years | 0.062 | 0.152 | 0.042 * | 0.093 | 0.072 * | 0.114 |
| More than two years | 0.041 | 0.152 | −0.033 ** | 0.152 | 0.105 | 0.234 |
| Self–rated disease severity | ||||||
| Light | 0.046 * | 0.175 | 0.034 * | 0.045 | −0.046 | 0.142 |
| General | 0.037 | 0.092 | 0.092 | 0.187 | 0.029 ** | 0.069 |
| Serious | 0.066 * | 0.139 | 0.086 | 0.137 | 0.035 *** | 0.122 |
|
| ||||||
| Satisfied with medical fee | 0.236 | 0.324 | −0.087 | 0.154 | 0.042 ** | 0.127 |
| Satisfied with medical service | 0.313 *** | 0.646 | 0.114 * | 0.223 | 0.031 | 0.095 |
| Satisfied with medical environment | 0.082 * | 0.148 | 0.124 | 0.277 | 0.065 ** | 0.152 |
|
| ||||||
| Prevalence level*poverty | ||||||
| Light*poverty | 0.046 * | 0.125 | 0.082 | 0.137 | 0.127 *** | 0.253 |
| General*poverty | 0.053 | 0.135 | 0.018 *** | 0.097 | 0.142 | 0.228 |
| Serious*poverty | 0.104 | 0.177 | 0.052 ** | 0.129 | 0.122 * | 0.282 |
| Medical charge*poverty | 0.131 | 0.218 | −0.088 | 0.159 | 0.095 ** | 0.182 |
| Medical service*poverty | 0.087 | 0.205 | 0.116 ** | 0.249 | 0.083 | 0.276 |
| Medical environment*poverty | 0.122 | 0.298 | −0.153 | 0.228 | 0.117 | 0.283 |
| Number of samples | 331 | 483 | 325 | |||
| Log likelihood value | −308.736 | |||||
| Wald chi2 (92) | 77.39 | |||||
| Significant level | 0.000 | |||||
| LR test for IIA | ||||||
| Chi2 (2) | 23.15 | |||||
| Prob > chi2 | 0.0000 | |||||
Notes: ***, **, and * represent variables at significance levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively; RC refers to regression coefficient; SD refers to standard deviation.
Figure 6The mechanisms influencing medical choices for chronic diseases in Gaoyou.