| Literature DB >> 33007952 |
Xiaodong Di1, Lijian Wang1, Xiuliang Dai1, Liu Yang1.
Abstract
With the rapid increase of the elderly population in China, healthcare services for the elderly have gradually become an important welfare resource. However, the healthcare service for the elderly still has problems such as mismatched supply and demand and unbalanced resources. In order to effectively eliminate the path barriers to match supply and demand, and improve the accessibility of healthcare services, this paper introduces the sustainability of the healthcare service based on the accessibility theory, and constructs an index system from the three dimensions of potential accessibility, realized accessibility, and sustainable accessibility of healthcare services for the elderly. Then, the paper makes a practice application of the index system based on survey data of healthcare services from Shaanxi province, China. Finally, the paper finds that the total accessibility and sustainable accessibility of healthcare services for the elderly in Shaanxi Province are at an average level. The score of potential accessibility is high, indicating that elderly people have greater opportunities to use healthcare services. The realized accessibility score is low, which indicates that the actual use of healthcare services for the elderly presents low satisfaction.Entities:
Keywords: accessibility; healthcare service for the elderly; index system; principal component analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33007952 PMCID: PMC7579536 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17197168
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
The Khan model of accessibility.
| Accessibility | Geographic | Social | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Potential | Opportunity | Opportunity | ||
| Cost | Cost | |||
| Realized | Opportunity | Opportunity | ||
| Cost | Cost | |||
Figure 1The analysis dimensions of the accessibility of healthcare services for the elderly.
Accessibility index system of healthcare services for the elderly.
| Total Index | First Level | Secondary Level | Measurement Indicators (Number) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accessibility index system of healthcare services for the elderly | Potential accessibility | Geographic accessibility opportunity | Satisfaction with community life |
| Convenience to community healthcare service center | |||
| Geographic accessibility | Reasonable level of expenditure for basic healthcare service | ||
| Social accessibility opportunity | Understanding of healthcare service | ||
| attention to healthcare service | |||
| Social accessibility cost | Perfection of the information platform for healthcare service | ||
| Frequency of policy publicity for healthcare service | |||
| Realized accessibility | Geographic accessibility opportunity | Completeness of the content of healthcare service in community | |
| Adequacy of resources of healthcare service in community | |||
| Geographic accessibility cost | Willingness to use healthcare service | ||
| Frequency of use of healthcare service | |||
| Social accessibility opportunity | Trust in using healthcare service | ||
| Benefits of using healthcare services for the elderly | |||
| Social accessibility cost | Convenience of using healthcare services for the elderly | ||
| Waiting time for healthcare service | |||
| Sustainable accessibility | Geographic accessibility opportunity | Ability to solve problems of healthcare personnel | |
| Trust of healthcare personnel in door-to-door care for the elderly | |||
| Geographic accessibility cost | Timeliness of door-to-door care | ||
| Caring for the elderly by healthcare personnel | |||
| Social accessibility opportunity | Willingness of elderly people to participate in social activity | ||
| Health status of elderly people | |||
| Social accessibility cost | Prospects of healthcare services for the elderly in community | ||
| Economic pressure on healthcare services for the elderly |
Descriptive statistics of the sample.
| Individual Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 405 | 42.7 |
| Female | 543 | 57.3 |
| Age | ||
| 60–69 | 415 | 43.8 |
| 70–79 | 325 | 34.3 |
| Above 80 | 208 | 21.9 |
| Registered permanent residence | ||
| City | 518 | 54.6 |
| Countryside | 430 | 45.4 |
| Political status | ||
| Communist Party | 247 | 26.1 |
| The masses | 689 | 72.7 |
| Democratic parties | 12 | 1.3 |
| Health status | ||
| Very bad | 43 | 4.5 |
| Bad | 179 | 18.9 |
| Average | 249 | 26.3 |
| Better | 330 | 34.8 |
| Well | 147 | 15.5 |
| Education | ||
| Elementary | 455 | 48.0 |
| Junior | 249 | 26.3 |
| High | 171 | 18.0 |
| Junior college | 49 | 5.2 |
| Bachelor | 24 | 2.5 |
Basic descriptive statistics of each index.
| Indicator | Mean | Median | Standard Deviation | Kurtosis | Skewness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.52 | 5 | 0.69 | 1.00 | −1.28 |
| 2 | 4.59 | 5 | 0.87 | 4.56 | −2.25 |
| 3 | 3.75 | 4 | 1.46 | −0.56 | −0.94 |
| 4 | 3.64 | 4 | 1.31 | −1.00 | −0.55 |
| 5 | 3.24 | 3 | 1.31 | −1.15 | −0.18 |
| 6 | 2.15 | 2 | 1.18 | −0.12 | 0.89 |
| 7 | 3.20 | 3 | 1.30 | −1.02 | −0.23 |
| 8 | 2.74 | 3 | 1.22 | −0.90 | 0.29 |
| 9 | 3.04 | 3 | 1.13 | −0.85 | −0.03 |
| 10 | 2.95 | 3 | 1.19 | −0.76 | 0.05 |
| 11 | 3.62 | 4 | 1.17 | −0.56 | −0.62 |
| 12 | 3.64 | 4 | 1.30 | −0.51 | −0.76 |
| 13 | 2.99 | 3 | 1.39 | −1.24 | −0.12 |
| 14 | 3.30 | 3 | 1.04 | 0.11 | −0.54 |
| 15 | 2.08 | 1 | 1.50 | −0.71 | 0.96 |
| 16 | 2.86 | 3 | 1.14 | −0.61 | 0.10 |
| 17 | 3.58 | 4 | 1.30 | −0.63 | −0.68 |
| 18 | 3.05 | 3 | 1.19 | −0.89 | −0.24 |
| 19 | 2.60 | 2 | 1.27 | −0.92 | 0.36 |
| 20 | 3.47 | 4 | 1.29 | −0.81 | −0.54 |
| 21 | 3.45 | 4 | 1.10 | −0.78 | −0.25 |
| 22 | 3.11 | 3 | 1.40 | −1.35 | −0.14 |
| 23 | 4.07 | 4 | 1.13 | 0.56 | −1.13 |
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s tests.
|
| 0.858 | |
| Bartlett’s sphericity test | Approximate chi-square | 5836.174 |
| Degrees of freedom. | 253 | |
| Significance | 0.000 | |
Total variance explained.
| Common | Initial Eigenvalues | Rotating Sum of Squares Loading | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Variance (%) | Cumulated (%) | Total | Variance (%) | Cumulated (%) | |
| 1 | 6.379 | 27.734 | 27.734 | 3.685 | 16.020 | 16.020 |
| 2 | 2.870 | 12.479 | 40.213 | 3.404 | 14.801 | 30.821 |
| 3 | 1.559 | 6.778 | 46.991 | 2.261 | 9.831 | 40.652 |
| 4 | 1.298 | 5.643 | 52.634 | 1.950 | 8.480 | 49.132 |
| 5 | 1.247 | 5.424 | 58.058 | 1.832 | 7.966 | 57.097 |
| 6 | 1.162 | 5.052 | 63.110 | 1.383 | 6.013 | 63.110 |
Rotation component matrix.
| Index | Component 1 | Component 2 | Component 3 | Component 4 | Component 5 | Component 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.011 | 0.078 | 0.197 | 0.017 | 0.070 | 0.406 |
| 2 | −0.004 | 0.107 | 0.032 | 0.796 | 0.203 | −0.043 |
| 3 | 0.158 | −0.183 | 0.509 | −0.028 | −0.344 | 0.155 |
| 4 | 0.128 | 0.174 | 0.169 | 0.207 | 0.742 | 0.099 |
| 5 | 0.099 | 0.172 | 0.165 | 0.160 | 0.808 | 0.057 |
| 6 | 0.114 | 0.766 | −0.037 | 0.202 | 0.189 | 0.036 |
| 7 | 0.175 | 0.553 | 0.057 | 0.113 | 0.207 | 0.250 |
| 8 | 0.157 | 0.747 | 0.133 | 0.309 | 0.006 | 0.052 |
| 9 | 0.019 | 0.683 | 0.260 | 0.302 | −0.079 | 0.097 |
| 10 | 0.167 | 0.459 | 0.560 | 0.259 | 0.200 | 0.043 |
| 11 | 0.111 | 0.226 | 0.738 | 0.068 | 0.138 | 0.043 |
| 12 | 0.912 | 0.003 | 0.033 | 0.055 | 0.022 | 0.065 |
| 13 | −0.053 | 0.380 | 0.081 | 0.766 | 0.160 | 0.007 |
| 14 | 0.289 | 0.493 | 0.375 | −0.028 | 0.111 | −0.160 |
| 15 | 0.110 | 0.631 | 0.114 | −0.244 | 0.327 | −0.121 |
| 16 | 0.793 | 0.295 | 0.135 | −0.088 | 0.078 | 0.041 |
| 17 | 0.901 | −0.034 | 0.093 | 0.015 | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| 18 | 0.859 | 0.196 | 0.151 | −0.040 | 0.032 | 0.051 |
| 19 | 0.626 | 0.407 | 0.021 | 0.124 | 0.195 | 0.145 |
| 20 | 0.028 | 0.093 | 0.690 | 0.008 | 0.255 | 0.062 |
| 21 | 0.077 | 0.067 | −0.030 | −0.095 | 0.194 | 0.718 |
| 22 | 0.084 | −0.036 | −0.009 | 0.056 | −0.168 | 0.712 |
| 23 | 0.093 | 0.145 | 0.520 | 0.498 | −0.005 | 0.039 |
Weight of indicator of accessibility of healthcare services for the elderly.
| Sub-Accessibility | Measurement Indicators | Percentage of Total Accessibility Weight (Rank) | Percentage of Sub-Accessibility Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potential Accessibility | 1 | 0.0256 (23) | 0.0864 |
| 2 | 0.0389 (17) | 0.1314 | |
| 3 | 0.0452 (11) | 0.1527 | |
| 4 | 0.0499 (3) | 0.1684 | |
| 5 | 0.0479 (5) | 0.1620 | |
| 6 | 0.0441 (13) | 0.1490 | |
| 7 | 0.0445 (12) | 0.1502 | |
| Realized Accessibility | 8 | 0.0461 (10) | 0.1232 |
| 9 | 0.0473 (8) | 0.1264 | |
| 10 | 0.0554 (1) | 0.1481 | |
| 11 | 0.0435 (15) | 0.1162 | |
| 12 | 0.0358 (21) | 0.0956 | |
| 13 | 0.0475 (7) | 0.1270 | |
| 14 | 0.0478 (6) | 0.1278 | |
| 15 | 0.0508 (2) | 0.1358 | |
| Sustainable Accessibility | 16 | 0.0469 (9) | 0.1422 |
| 17 | 0.0360 (20) | 0.1090 | |
| 18 | 0.0436 (14) | 0.1322 | |
| 19 | 0.0498 (4) | 0.1510 | |
| 20 | 0.0373 (19) | 0.1130 | |
| 21 | 0.0388 (18) | 0.1175 | |
| 22 | 0.0350 (22) | 0.1059 | |
| 23 | 0.0427 (16) | 0.1293 |
Score of indicators of the accessibility of healthcare services for the elderly.
| Potential Accessibility Indicators | Score | Realized Accessibility Indicators | Score | Sustainable Accessibility Indicators | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.52 | 8 | 2.74 | 16 | 2.86 |
| 2 | 3.75 | 9 | 3.04 | 17 | 3.58 |
| 3 | 4.59 | 10 | 2.95 | 18 | 3.05 |
| 4 | 3.64 | 11 | 3.62 | 19 | 2.60 |
| 5 | 3.24 | 12 | 3.64 | 20 | 3.47 |
| 6 | 2.15 | 13 | 2.99 | 21 | 3.45 |
| 7 | 3.20 | 14 | 3.30 | 22 | 3.11 |
| 15 | 2.08 | 23 | 4.07 |