| Literature DB >> 31757034 |
Qingbin Guo1, Kang Luo2.
Abstract
This paper estimated and evaluated the spatial-temporal evolution of the concentration of healthcare resources (HCRs), in 31 provinces in China between 2004 and 2017, by using the entropy method. The spatial Durbin model (SDM) was used to further analyze the mechanisms behind the spatial driving forces at the national and regional levels. The findings revealed that: (i) The concentration of HCRs differed significantly among eastern, central, and western regions. The eastern, followed by the central region, had the highest concentration. Going east to west, the concentration of HCRs in the first echelon decreased, while it increased in the second and third echelons; (ii) places with higher concentrations clustered, while those with lower concentrations agglomerated; and (iii) economic development, population size, and urbanization promoted concentration. Education facilitated HCR concentration in the eastern and central regions, income stimulated HCR concentration in the eastern and western regions, and fiscal expenditure on healthcare promoted HCR concentration in the eastern region. Economic development inhibited HCR concentration in neighboring regions, population size restrained HCR concentration in neighboring areas in the western region, urbanization and income curbed HCR concentration in neighboring areas in the eastern and western regions, and fiscal expenditure on healthcare hindered HCR concentration in neighboring areas in the eastern region. Policy recommendations were proposed toward optimizing allocation of healthcare resources, increasing support for healthcare and education, and accelerating urbanization.Entities:
Keywords: concentration of healthcare resources; spatial Durbin model; spatial driving mechanisms
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31757034 PMCID: PMC6926674 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16234606
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Evaluation Indicator System of Healthcare Resources Concentration and the Corresponding Weights.
| Primal Indicator | Secondary Indicators | Weights |
|---|---|---|
| Concentration of Healthcare Resources | Number of Hospitals | 0.126 |
| Number of Community Health Service Centers/Stations | 0.175 | |
| Number of Certified Physician Assistants | 0.083 | |
| Number of Certified Physicians | 0.081 | |
| Number of Registered Nurses | 0.079 | |
| Number of Managers in Medical Institutions | 0.076 | |
| Number of Workers in Medical Institutions | 0.085 | |
| Number of Healthcare Practitioners/1000 People | 0.085 | |
| Total Assets of Health Institutions (RMB 1000) | 0.093 | |
| Number of Hospital Beds/1000 People | 0.118 |
Variable and Descriptive Statistics (2004–2017).
| Variables | Unit | Indicator | Observations | Mean | Max | Min | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration of HCRs | / | / | 434 | 0.309 | 0.752 | 0.01 | 0.171 |
| Economic Development (GDP) | RMB 1 Billion | Regional GDP | 434 | 1562.597 | 8970.523 | 22.034 | 1517.425 |
| Population Size (Pop) | Million | Year-end population | 434 | 43.0715 | 111.6900 | 2.7635 | 27.2375 |
| Urbanization Level (Urb) | % | % of urban land to total land area | 434 | 51.55 | 89.60 | 20.85 | 14.82 |
| Education (Stu) | Number | Number of students in colleges and universities in the region | 434 | 525,563.11 | 2,015,345.00 | 55.00 | 478,440.99 |
| Annual Salary (Wag) | RMB | Average annual salary in the healthcare industry | 434 | 36,225.85 | 183,362.23 | 3648.97 | 20,969.68 |
| Fiscal Expenditure on Healthcare (Exp) | RMB 1 Billion | Fiscal expenditure on health care | 434 | 20.177 | 130.756 | 0.435 | 19.698 |
Figure 1Mean Values of HCR Concentration at National and Regional Levels (Eastern, Central, and Western Regions).
Regional Spatial Distribution of HCR Concentration in 2004, 2010, and 2017.
| Data Range | China | Eastern China | Central China | Western China | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 2010 | 2017 | 2004 | 2010 | 2017 | 2004 | 2010 | 2017 | 2004 | 2010 | 2017 | |
| >0.4 | 35.5 | 29.0 | 25.8 | 25.8 | 22.6 | 19.4 | 6.5 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| 0.2–0.4 | 41.9 | 45.2 | 48.4 | 6.5 | 9.7 | 9.7 | 19.4 | 19.4 | 22.6 | 16.1 | 16.1 | 16.1 |
| <0.2 | 22.6 | 25.8 | 25.8 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 6.5 | 0 | 3.2 | 0 | 19.4 | 19.4 | 19.4 |
Analysis of spatial driving mechanisms of HCR concentration in China; numerical values in year columns denote percentages.
Figure 2Global Moran’s I of HCR Concentration in China.
Results of the Spatial Econometric Model Test.
| Objectives | Methods | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Form of Spatial Dependence | LM test no spatial lag | 11.5026 *** | 0.001 |
| Robust LM test no spatial lag | 29.2864 *** | 0.000 | |
| LM test no spatial error | 186.0900 *** | 0.000 | |
| Robust LM test no spatial error | 1.3849 | 0.680 | |
| Selection of Spatial Econometric Model (SAR, SEM, and SDM) | Wald spatial lag | 203.8738 *** | 0.000 |
| LR spatial lag | 136.0359 *** | 0.000 | |
| Wald spatial error | 220.1195 *** | 0.000 | |
| LR spatial error | 354.2586 *** | 0.000 |
Remark: * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. The same remark applies to all of the following tables.
Estimation Results of Fixed Effect by Spatial Durbin Model (SDM).
| Statistics | Random Effect | Spatial Fixed Effect | Temporal Fixed Effect | Spatiotemporal Fixed Effects |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | 0.6806 | 0.7574 | 0.7535 | 0.8512 |
| Log-likelihood | 437.6806 | 471.3144 | 487.4108 | 520.7912 |
| Observation | 434 | 434 | 434 | 434 |
Direct, Indirect, and Overall Effects of Factors Affecting HCR concentration in China.
| Variable | China | Eastern China | Central China | Western China | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| GDP | 0.000002 *** | 0.000003 ** | 0.000007 ** | 0.000007 *** |
| Pop | 0.000037 *** | 0.000027 *** | 0.000034 ** | 0.000034 *** | |
| Urb | 0.004388 *** | 0.001679 * | 0.009106 ** | 0.001228 *** | |
| Stu | 0.000000 * | 0.000000 * | 0.000000 * | 0.000000 | |
| Wag | 0.000002 *** | 0.000007 *** | 0.000003 | 0.000001 ** | |
| Exp | 0.000000 *** | 0.000000 *** | −0.000000 | 0.000000 | |
| Indirect Effect | GDP | −0.000002 ** | −0.000004 *** | −0.000009 *** | −0.000011 *** |
| Pop | −0.000012 ** | 0.000015 | 0.000001 | −0.000020 *** | |
| Urb | 0.000152 | 0.002032 * | −0.005185 | 0.003092 *** | |
| Stu | −0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | −0.000000 | |
| Wag | −0.000004 *** | −0.000008 *** | 0.000003 | −0.000002 *** | |
| Exp | −0.000000 ** | −0.000000*** | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | |
| Overall Effect | GDP | 0.000001 | −0.000001 | −0.000002** | −0.000004 *** |
| Pop | 0.000025 *** | 0.000043 *** | 0.000035 *** | 0.000014 *** | |
| Urb | 0.004540 *** | 0.003711 *** | 0.003921 *** | 0.004320*** | |
| Stu | 0.000000 | 0.000000* | 0.000000 * | −0.000000 | |
| Wag | −0.000001 * | −0.000001(−0.669) | 0.000000 | −0.000001 * | |
| Exp | −0.000000 | 0.000000 | −0.000000 | 0.000000 | |
Note: Figures in brackets are t-values.*, **, *** mean that the statistics were significant at the statistical significance levels of 1,5,10 percent. GDP is the economic development, Pop is the population size, Urb is the urbanization level, Stu is the education, Wag is the annual salary, Exp is the fiscal expenditure on healthcare.
Direct, Indirect, and Overall Effects of the Model Based on Geographic Distance Weight Matrix.
| Variables | China | Eastern China | Central China | Western China | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| GDP | 0.000002 *** | 0.000002 * | 0.000006 ** | 0.000006 *** |
| Pop | 0.000032 *** | 0.000022 *** | 0.000029 ** | 0.000030 *** | |
| Urb | 0.003965 *** | 0.001408 * | 0.006763 ** | 0.002035 *** | |
| Stu | 0.000000 * | 0.000000 * | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | |
| Wag | 0.000002 *** | 0.000006 *** | 0.000003 | 0.000001 ** | |
| Exp | 0.000000 *** | 0.000000 *** | −0.000000 | 0.000000 | |
| Indirect Effect | GDP | −0.000002 ** | −0.000003 *** | −0.000007 *** | −0.000009 *** |
| Pop | −0.000010 ** | 0.000012 | 0.000001 | −0.000017 *** | |
| Urb | 0.000137 | 0.001907 | −0.004925 | 0.002645 *** | |
| Stu | −0.000000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | −0.000000 | |
| Wag | −0.000005 *** | −0.000007*** | 0.000003 | −0.000002 *** | |
| Exp | −0.000000 ** | −0.000000 *** | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | |
| Overall Effect | GDP | 0.000001 | −0.000000 | −0.000001 ** | −0.000003 *** |
| Pop | 0.000023 *** | 0.000037 *** | 0.000029 *** | 0.000010 *** | |
| Urb | 0.003908 *** | 0.002901 *** | 0.004528 *** | 0.003958 *** | |
| Stu | 0.000000 | 0.000000 * | 0.000000 * | −0.000000 | |
| Wag | −0.000001 * | −0.000001 | 0.000000 | −0.000001 * | |
| Exp | −0.000000 | 0.000000 | −0.000000 | 0.000000 | |
Note: Figures in brackets are t-values.*, **, *** mean that the statistics were significant at the statistical significance levels of 1,5,10 percent. GDP is the economic development, Pop is the population size, Urb is the urbanization level, Stu is the education, Wag is the annual salary, Exp is the fiscal expenditure on healthcare.