| Literature DB >> 35052224 |
Gan Li1,2, Chuanfeng Han1,3, Pihui Liu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rapid growth of the elderly population poses a huge challenge for people to access medical services. The key to get rid of the dilemma is for patients to go firstly to primary medical institutions. Existing studies have identified numerous factors that can affect patients' health institution choice. However, we currently know little about the role of Internet use in the patients' medical decisions. The objective of this study is to explore health-seeking behavior and institution choice under the background of the Internet era from the perspective of older adults, and to analyze whether the Internet could guide patients to the appropriate medical institution so as to accomplish hierarchical treatment.Entities:
Keywords: CHARLS; PSM; gatekeeping system; primary health institutions; self-treatment
Year: 2021 PMID: 35052224 PMCID: PMC8775657 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10010060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Descriptive statistics.
| Variables | Definition | ALL | Internet Users | Non-Internet Users | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (S.D.) | Mean (S.D.) | Mean (S.D.) | |||
| Self-treatment | 0 = no self-treatment, 1 = self-treatment | 0.468 (0.499) | 0.490 (0.495) | 0.465 (0.499) | 0.025 *** |
| HIS-CD | 0 = primary medical institution, 1 = great public hospitals | 0.366 (0.482) | 0.473 (0.470) | 0.354 (0.478) | 0.119 *** |
| HIS-MD | 0 = primary medical institution, 1 = great public hospitals | 0.805 (0.397) | 0.824 (0.267) | 0.801 (0.400) | 0.023 |
| Age | ranging from 45 to 101 years | 59.62(9.734) | 53.52(7.272) | 59.86 (9.740) | −6.34 *** |
| Gender | 0 = male, 1 = female | 0.516 (0.500) | 0.408 (0.492) | 0.521 (0.500) | −1.113 *** |
| Urban vs. rural residence | 0 = rural residents, 1 = urban residents | 0.212 (0.409) | 0.708 (0.455) | 0.192 (0.394) | 0.516 *** |
| Marriage status | 0 = having no partner, 1 = having a partner | 0.871 (0.336) | 0.926 (0.262) | 0.869 (0.338) | 0.057 |
| Education | 1 = uneducated, 2 = literate, 3 = primary education, 4 = secondary education, 5 = tertiary education | 2.846 (1.362) | 4.543 (0.698) | 2.778 (1.338) | 1.765 *** |
| Insured | 0 = having no insurance, 1 = having insurance | 0.937 (0.243) | 0.958 (0.201) | 0.936 (0.245) | 0.022 |
| Self-rated health | self-rated health: 0 = poor, 1 = fair, 2 = good, 3 = very good, 4 = excellent | 2.165 (0.581) | 1.912 (0.500) | 2.175 (0.582) | −0.263 *** |
| IADL | Instrumental Activity of Daily Living, 0–28 | 10.18 (4.056) | 7.663 (2.677) | 10.28 (4.069) | −2.6171 *** |
| Per capital income | log form of annual household per capital income (CNY) | 8.106 (2.612) | 9.408 (2.622) | 8.054 (2.598) | 1.354 *** |
| Household size | the total number of family members | 3.258 (3.583) | 3.247 (1.515) | 3.259 (3.641) | −0.012 |
| Number of children | the total number of children in the legal sense | 2.792 (1.446) | 2.656 (0.870) | 2.837 (1.446) | −0.181 *** |
| Housing type | 0 = wood, bamboo, grass, sheet iron, cave dwelling, adobe, 1 = bricks and wood, mixed structure, 3 = concrete and steel | 1.355 (0.701) | 1.564 (0.726) | 1.347 (0.699) | 0.217 *** |
| Observations | 9416 | 1884 | 7528 | ||
Note. * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.
Effect of Internet use on medical decisions.
| Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Treatment | HIS-CD | HIS-MD | |
| Internet use | 0.050 ** | 0.060 *** | 0.030 |
| (0.047) | (0.001) | (0.516) | |
| Age | −0.001 | −0.010 | −0.010 * |
| (0.588) | (0.221) | (0.066) | |
| Gender | 0.030 | −0.200 *** | −0.080 |
| (0.734) | (0.004) | (0.498) | |
| Urban vs. rural residence | 0.360 *** | 0.860 *** | 1.290 *** |
| (0.003) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
| Marry | 0.030 | −0.080 | 0.080 |
| (0.760) | (0.426) | (0.587) | |
| Uneducated | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| (.) | (.) | (.) | |
| Literate | 0.330 ** | 0.240 ** | 0.180 |
| (0.011) | (0.031) | (0.274) | |
| Primary education | 0.220 ** | 0.220 ** | 0.320 ** |
| (0.050) | (0.027) | (0.033) | |
| Secondary education | 0.270 ** | 0.460 *** | 0.450 ** |
| (0.040) | (0.000) | (0.015) | |
| Tertiary education | 0.120 | 0.650 *** | 0.830 *** |
| (0.493) | (0.000) | (0.001) | |
| Insured | 0.420 *** | −0.100 | −0.290 |
| (0.004) | (0.507) | (0.327) | |
| Per capital income | 0.040 *** | 0.040 *** | 0.040 ** |
| (0.002) | (0.004) | (0.030) | |
| Self-rated health | 0.200 *** | 0.000 | −0.150 |
| (0.006) | (0.989) | (0.114) | |
| IADL | 0.008 | 0.040 *** | 0.050 *** |
| (0.011) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |
| Household Size | −0.020 | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| (0.359) | (0.818) | (0.788) | |
| Number of children | 0.020 | −0.060 ** | 0.080 * |
| (0.583) | (0.035) | (0.068) | |
| Humble and old house | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| (.) | (.) | (.) | |
| Brick and concrete house | 0.040 | −0.210 ** | −0.380 ** |
| (0.747) | (0.042) | (0.044) | |
| Concrete and steel house | −0.070 | 0.080 | −0.180 |
| (0.548) | (0.424) | (0.311) | |
| Constant | −2.360 ** | −2.680 *** | −0.160 |
| (0.022) | (0.635) | (0.861) | |
| Province fixed effects | YES | YES | YES |
| Year fixed effects | YES | YES | YES |
| Observations | 3314 | 4938 | 2444 |
| Wald | 136.490 | 601.820 | 183.370 |
| R-squared | 0.1381 | 0.1199 | 0.110 |
Note. * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01, robust standard errors in parentheses. HIS-CD = health institution selection-common disease; HIS-MD = health institution selection-major disease.
Figure 1Probability score distribution. (a) Before matching; (b) after matching.
The average treatment effect of Internet on medical decisions.
| Matching Method | (1) | (2) | (3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Treatment | HIS-CD | HIS-MD | |
| Before the match ATT | 0.111 *** | 0.294 *** | 0.126 ** |
| (0.041) | (0.032) | (0.044) | |
| Nearest neighbor matching (1:1) ATT | 0.099 ** | 0.116 ** | 0.063 |
| (0.064) | (0.053) | (0.052) | |
| Nearest neighbor matching (1;5) ATT | 0.093 ** | 0.117 ** | 0.017 |
| (0.049) | (0.041) | (0.037) | |
| Radius matching method ATT | 0.081 ** | 0.116 *** | 0.027 |
| (0.046) | (0.038) | (0.034) | |
| Kernel matching ATT | 0.079 ** | 0.115 ** | 0.026 |
| (0.046) | (0.038) | (0.034) | |
| ATT Average | 0.088 ** | 0.116 ** | 0.033 |
Note. * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01, AI robust standard errors in brackets. ATT = average treatment effect. The average treatment effect of this paper: controlled age, gender, marital status, education level, urban-rural differences, family income per capita, health status, IADL, number of family members, number of children, housing type, and controlled urban fixed effects and time fixed effects.
Heterogeneity analysis of the influence of Internet on medical decisions.
| Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Treatment | HIS-CD | HIS-MD | ||
| Gender | Male | 0.142 ** | 0.131 ** | 0.018 |
| (0.067) | (0.060) | (0.054) | ||
| Female | 0.028 | 0.112 * | 0.05 | |
| (0.080) | (0.062) | (0.056) | ||
| Urban vs. rural residence | Rural | 0.148 ** | 0.118 * | 0.161 ** |
| (0.077) | (0.070) | (0.071) | ||
| Urban | 0.020 | 0.089 * | −0.003 | |
| (0.060) | (0.048) | (−0.09) | ||
| Family economic status | Low income | −0.016 | −0.130 | 0.001 |
| (0.164) | (0.164) | (0.19) | ||
| Middle income | 0.174 *** | 0.192 *** | 0.062 | |
| (0.060) | (0.069) | (0.054) | ||
| High income | 0.088 | 0.072 | −0.02 | |
| (0.084) | (0.055) | (0.044) | ||
Note. * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01, AI robust standard errors in brackets. the nearest neighbor matching (1:5) was used for estimation. The average treatment effect also controls age, gender, marital status, education level, urban–rural differences, per capita household income, health status, IADL, number of family members, number of children, and housing type; the fixed effects of city and time, limited to length, are no longer reported.
Estimates of fixed effects and random effects of the influence of Internet on medical decisions.
| Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Treatment | HIS-CD | HIS-MD | |
| Panel A: Fixed-effects model | |||
| Internet use | 0.070 ** | 0.155 ** | 0.02 |
| (0.071) | (0.025) | (0.040) | |
| Control variable | yes | yes | yes |
| Personal fixed effect | yes | yes | yes |
| Year fixed effect | yes | yes | yes |
| N | 3987 | 7810 | 2945 |
| F | 0.27 | 4.28 | 3.90 |
| Within R-sq | 0.023 | 0.0267 | 0.059 |
| Panel B: Random effects model | |||
| Internet use | 0.078 *** | 0.092 ** | −0.013 |
| (0.019) | (0.010) | (0.041) | |
| Control variable | yes | yes | yes |
| Urban fixed effect | yes | yes | yes |
| Year control variable | yes | yes | yes |
| N | 3987 | 7810 | 2945 |
| Within R-sq | 0.179 | 0.233 | 0.152 |
| Between R-sq | 0.418 | 0.384 | 0.346 |
| Overall R-sq | 0.021 | 0.1310 | 0.093 |
Note. * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01, the parentheses are the Driscoll–Kraay error. The fixed-effects model has two-way control of time effect and individual effect. It also controls age, gender, marital status, education level, urban–rural differences, family income per capita, health status, IADL, number of family members, number of children, and housing type; the random effects model also controls these variables and controls the province fixed effects. Due to space limitations, this paper only reports the estimated results of the key explanatory variables Internet use.