| Literature DB >> 33139667 |
Lijian Wang1, Xiaodong Di1, Liu Yang1, Xiuliang Dai1.
Abstract
With the increase of the aging population and the lack of family care, home-based healthcare services have gradually become the main model to cope with aging, so local governments have invested heavily in the construction of home-based healthcare services. However, healthcare services still have problems such as low resource utilization and imbalanced development. The reason is that the supply and demand of healthcare services are not matched and the potential accessibility is low. Therefore, based on the supply and demand of healthcare services, this article pulls out the spatial and social factors that affect the potential accessibility, and tests the influence of individual factors on the potential accessibility among different groups of older adults. It is found that the perceived vulnerability of the older adults will reduce the potential accessibility of healthcare services. The psychosocial status, income and education level with the willingness to use healthcare services of the older adults are directly proportional, while residence has a negative impact on the potential accessibility. Finally, based on this finding, this article puts forward feasible suggestions from the perspective of policy content, publicity, and implementation.Entities:
Keywords: difference analysis; healthcare service; perceived vulnerability; potential accessibility
Year: 2020 PMID: 33139667 PMCID: PMC7711610 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare8040452
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1Analysis framework and hypotheses.
Descriptive statistics of the study sample.
| Variable | Indicator | Item | Mean | Median | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Number) | |||||
| Dependent variable | Potential accessibility | Willingness to use healthcare service | 3.5957 | 4 | 1.1550 |
| Independent variable | Distance to service | Convenience to community healthcare service centers | 3.7769 | 4 | 1.4304 |
| (1) | |||||
| Perceived vulnerability | Perceived fairness to use healthcare service | 3.4097 | 3 | 1.1428 | |
| (2) | |||||
| Control variable | Individual characteristics | Psychosocial status | 4.2185 | 4 | 0.9295 |
| (3) | |||||
| Income | 3.3340 | 4 | 0.9557 | ||
| (4) | |||||
| Education level | 1.9560 | 2 | 1.0386 | ||
| (5) | |||||
| Residence | 1.4249 | 1 | 0.4947 | ||
| (6) | |||||
| Health status | 3.4810 | 4 | 1.0835 | ||
| (7) | |||||
| Gender | 1.6085 | 2 | 0.4886 | ||
| (8) |
The impact of perceived vulnerability on potential accessibility.
| Variable | Model1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.2282 *** | 0.2760 *** | 0.2640 *** | 0.2755 *** | 0.2373 *** | 0.2403 *** | 0.2758 *** |
| (4.2525) | (5.0992) | (4.9003) | (5.0652) | (4.4394) | 4.4997) | (5.0056) | |
| 2 | 0.3699 *** | 0.3960 *** | 0.3846 *** | 0.3943 *** | 0.3765 *** | 0.3846 *** | 0.3814 *** |
| (5.5599) | (5.9447) | (5.7907) | (5.9256) | (5.6416) | (5.7848) | (5.6852) | |
| 3 | 0.2185 *** | 0.1779 ** | |||||
| (2.8584) | (2.2191) | ||||||
| 4 | 0.2117 *** | 0.1082 | |||||
| (3.8669) | (1.4836) | ||||||
| 5 | 0.2303 *** | 0.1179 | |||||
| (3.3055) | (1.4388) | ||||||
| 6 | -0.4641*** | −0.2065 | |||||
| (-3.1631) | (−1.1611) | ||||||
| 7 | 0.1026 | −0.003 | |||||
| (1.5464) | (−0.0428) | ||||||
| 8 | −0.0979 | 0.0339 | |||||
| (−0.6760) | (0.2245) | ||||||
| Log likelihood | −926.90 | −923.43 | −925.46 | −925.96 | −929.78 | −930.75 | −918.85 |
Note: T-values are in parentheses. *** means significant at the 1% level, ** means significant at the 5% level, and * means significant at the 10% level.
The impact of psychosocial status on potential accessibility.
| Variable | Potential Accessibility | Potential Accessibility |
|---|---|---|
| (Poor Psychosocial Status) | (Better Psychosocial Status) | |
| 1 | 0.3446 *** | 0.2596 *** |
| (2.5286) | (4.2761) | |
| 2 | 0.9471 *** | 0.2731 *** |
| (5.3821) | (3.6968) | |
| 4 | 0.3237 | 0.0940 |
| (1.6350) | (1.1789) | |
| 5 | 0.3396 | 0.0853 |
| (1.3622) | (0.9762) | |
| 6 | −0.4743 | −0.1510 |
| (−1.0168) | (−0.7743) | |
| 7 | −0.3721 | 0.0654 |
| (−2.2842) | (0.8217) | |
| 8 | −0.0950 | 0.0747 |
| (−0.2218) | (0.4588) | |
| Log likelihood | −153.58 | −754.85 |
Note: T-values are in parentheses. *** means significant at the 1% level, ** means significant at the 5% level, and * means significant at the 10% level.
The impact of income on potential accessibility.
| Variable | Potential Accessibility | Potential Accessibility |
|---|---|---|
| (Low Income) | (High Income) | |
| 1 | 0.3963 *** | 0.0972 |
| (5.4611) | (1.1221) | |
| 2 | 0.4339 *** | 0.2916 *** |
| (5.0954) | (2.5817) | |
| 3 | 0.1743 * | 0.2629 * |
| (1.7919) | (1.8004) | |
| 5 | 0.3396 | 0.0543 |
| (1.3622) | (0.4802) | |
| 6 | 0.2330 ** | −0.6045 |
| (2.0020) | (−1.4474) | |
| 7 | −0.0696 | 0.1134 |
| (−0.7996) | (0.8837) | |
| 8 | −0.3082 | 0.6691 *** |
| (−1.5855) | (2.6762) | |
| Log likelihood | −589.77 | −315.03 |
Note: T-values are in parentheses. *** means significant at the 1% level, ** means significant at the 5% level, and * means significant at the 10% level.
The impact of education level on potential accessibility.
| Variable | Potential Accessibility | Potential Accessibility |
|---|---|---|
| (Low Education Level) | (High Education Level) | |
| 1 | 0.2888 *** | 0.2396 |
| (4.9778) | (1.2526) | |
| 2 | 0.3745 *** | 0.2799 |
| (5.3846) | (0.9361) | |
| 3 | 0.1718 ** | 0.2422 |
| (2.0541) | (0.8214) | |
| 4 | 0.1674 ** | −0.3996 |
| (2.3318) | (−1.1548) | |
| 6 | −0.1784 | −1.2266 |
| (−0.9812) | (−1.3723) | |
| 7 | −0.1180 | 0.0021 |
| (−0.1590) | (0.0077) | |
| 8 | −0.1110 | 1.2324 ** |
| (−1.7178) | (2.1312) | |
| Log likelihood | −848.01 | −64.19 |
Note: T-values are in parentheses. *** means significant at the 1% level, ** means significant at the 5% level, and * means significant at the 10% level.
The impact of residence on potential accessibility.
| Variable | Potential Accessibility | Potential Accessibility |
|---|---|---|
| (Urban) | (Rural) | |
| 1 | 0.1774 *** | 0.5008 *** |
| (2.7136) | (4.9050) | |
| 2 | 0.3682 *** | 0.4090 *** |
| (4.2470) | (3.7999) | |
| 3 | 0.1551 | 0.2413 * |
| (1.4340) | (1.9526) | |
| 4 | 0.0969 | 0.0938 |
| (1.0024) | (0.8232) | |
| 5 | 0.1971 ** | −0.0434 |
| (1.9803) | (−0.2893) | |
| 7 | 0.0923 | −0.1264 |
| (0.9503) | (−1.1759) | |
| 8 | 0.3803 * | −0.4522 |
| (1.9092) | (−1.9129) | |
| Log likelihood | −517.30 | −392.03 |
Note: T-values are in parentheses. *** means significant at the 1% level, ** means significant at the 5% level, and * means significant at the 10% level.