| Literature DB >> 35270560 |
Jiayi Tang1, Haibo Ruan2, Chao Wang3, Wendong Xu4, Changgui Li3, Xuan Dong3.
Abstract
Rural health governance is an important part of low-carbon green life, which is also related to the sustainable development and population health project in rural areas. Based on the survey data of 2343 rural residents in China, this study adopted a binary logistic regression model to explore the effects of rural residents' social network and cognition on their participation in rural health governance. The research results show that only less than 30% of the respondents participated in rural health governance, and the proportion of rural resident participating is not high. Both their social network and cognition have a significant impact on their participation in rural health governance. Introverted communication helps strengthen the connection between rural residents, form the network and structure of rural social communication, build emotional links and common interests, and form a common cultural understanding paradigm and action framework. The extraverted communication means that rural residents gradually break away from the social network of acquaintances, which is not conducive to building a rural community. Rural residents' understanding of behavior begins to deviate from rural culture, customs and emotional values, and the binding force of traditional culture is reduced, making it difficult to motivate them to participate in rural public life. Policy cognition can improve rural residents' recognition of the value and significance of health governance. Responsibility awareness is the internal driving force for rural residents to participate in health governance, which can also reduce the governance cost of rural managers. Based on this, increasing rural residents' introverted communication and cultivating their sense of responsibility are key to promoting their participation in rural health governance.Entities:
Keywords: introverted communication; responsibility awareness; rural health governance; rural resident cognition; social network
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35270560 PMCID: PMC8910191 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052862
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Sample characteristics.
| Characteristic Index | Classification | Frequency | Proportion (%) | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 1527 | 65.17 | 0.48 |
| Female | 816 | 34.83 | ||
| Age | Below 30 | 109 | 4.65 | 1.14 |
| 30–39 | 187 | 7.98 | ||
| 40–49 | 448 | 19.12 | ||
| 50–59 | 711 | 30.35 | ||
| 60 and above | 888 | 37.90 | ||
| Occupation | Farming | 1523 | 65.00 | 1.60 |
| Working | 372 | 15.88 | ||
| Teaching | 29 | 1.24 | ||
| Self-employed and private business owners | 154 | 6.57 | ||
| Rural managing | 58 | 2.48 | ||
| Other | 207 | 8.83 | ||
| Marital status | Unmarried | 134 | 5.72 | 0.62 |
| Married | 1976 | 84.34 | ||
| Divorced | 41 | 1.75 | ||
| Widowed | 192 | 8.19 | ||
| Region | Eastern | 383 | 16.35 | 0.69 |
| Middle | 1143 | 48.78 | ||
| Western | 817 | 34.87 | ||
| In total | 2343 | 100 | ||
Variable definitions and valuation.
| Variables | Variable Name | Operational Processing | Valuation | Average | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable | Participation in rural health governance | Participate in the governance or not | No = 0; Yes = 1 | 0.28 | 0.45 |
| Control variable | Sex | Your sex | Female = 0; Male = 1 | 0.65 | 0.48 |
| Age | Your age | Below 30 =1; 30–39 = 2; 40–49 = 3; 50–59 = 4; 60 and above = 5 | 3.89 | 1.14 | |
| Educational level | Your educational level | Illiterate = 1; Primary school = 2; Junior high school = 3; High school =4; College degree or above = 5 | 2.64 | 0.95 | |
| Life pressure | Your life pressure | No = 1; Little = 2; General = 3; High = 4; Very high = 5 | 3.44 | 0.90 | |
| Social network | Introverted communication | Human relation pressure | Very small = 1; Small = 2; General = 3; large = 4; Very large = 5 | 3.56 | 0.93 |
| Extraverted communication | Outgoing frequency | No = 1; Seldom = 2; General = 3; Often = 4; Frequent = 5 | 2.82 | 0.98 | |
| Residents’cognition | Policy cognition | Related policy cognition | No = 1; Little = 2; General = 3; Clear = 4; Very clear = 5 | 2.60 | 1.11 |
| Remediation project cognition | No = 1; Little = 2; General = 3; Clear = 4; Very clear = 5 | 2.66 | 1.05 | ||
| Responsibility awareness | Responsibility identity cognition | Very disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; General = 3; Agree = 4; Very agree = 5 | 4.20 | 0.72 | |
| Responsibility expression | No = 0; Yes = 1 | 0.21 | 0.41 | ||
| Willingness in expression | Unwilling = 0; Willing = 1 | 0.76 | 0.43 |
Correlation analysis between the cognition and participation in rural health governance (Unit: %, number).
| Related Policy Cognition | Participation | Responsibility Expression | Participation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | No | Yes | ||
| No | 80.68 | 19.32 | No | 79.67 | 20.33 |
| Little | 77.94 | 22.06 | |||
| General | 72.28 | 27.72 | |||
| Clear | 59.00 | 41.00 | Yes | 41.22 | 58.78 |
| Very clear | 36.96 | 63.04 | |||
| Sample: 2334; | Sample: 2325; | ||||
Regression analysis of participation in rural health governance.
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | Standard Error | β | Standard Error | β | Standard Error | |
| Control variable | ||||||
| Sex a | 0.249 * | 0.101 | 0.282 ** | 0.103 | 0.137 | 0.112 |
| Age | 0.018 | 0.047 | −0.008 | 0.048 | −0.010 | 0.052 |
| Educational level | 0.162 ** | 0.055 | 0.188 *** | 0.056 | 0.057 | 0.062 |
| Life pressure | 0.232 *** | 0.054 | 0.157 ** | 0.057 | 0.181 ** | 0.062 |
| Social network | ||||||
| Human relation pressure | 0.240 *** | 0.054 | 0.240 *** | 0.059 | ||
| Outgoing frequency | −0.214 *** | 0.050 | −0.236 *** | 0.054 | ||
| Policy cognition | ||||||
| Related policy cognition | 0.152 * | 0.077 | ||||
| Remediation project cognition | 0.208 * | 0.082 | ||||
| Responsibility awareness | ||||||
| Responsibility identity cognition | 0.374 ** | 0.079 | ||||
| Responsibility expression b | 1.465 ** | 0.119 | ||||
| Willingness in expression c | 0.472 ** | 0.143 | ||||
| constant | −2.644 *** | 0.379 | −2.674 | 0.425 | −5.288 *** | 0.562 |
| Model fitting | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |||
| −2 Log Likelihood | 2730.294 | 2672.956 | 2304.253 | |||
| Nagelkerke R | 0.024 | 0.046 | 0.241 | |||
| Valid sample | 2316 | 2277 | 2277 | |||
Note: 1. * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001; 2. The reference groups of “a, b, c” are female, no and unwilling; 3. OR = exp(β).