| Literature DB >> 35480587 |
Rui Min1, Zi Fang2, Chunyan Zi3, Changmin Tang4, Pengqian Fang5,6.
Abstract
Introduction: With more than 120 million rural-to-urban migrants, urbanization of the rural population requires deeply exploration in China. Objective: This study focused on settled citizens who obtained urban Hukou (household registration) during urbanization and investigated their perceptions of health services in China. Method: A cross-sectional comparison study with an original, closed questionnaire was conducted in two major cities of Hubei, central China, covering health status and both the satisfaction with and utilization of health services. In total, 863 residents with urban Hukou participated in this study; migrants formed the study group and original city residents formed the control group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce choice bias in the analysis steps. Besides basic description of the data, ordinary least squares regression (OLS regression) was used to discover the relationship between basic demographic indicators and health expenditure.Entities:
Keywords: comparative study; equity in health; health service utilization; rural-to-urban residents; urbanization progress
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35480587 PMCID: PMC9037327 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.784066
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Demography characteristics of migrant group compared to aboriginal group before and after propensity score matching (PSM).
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Age (mean ± S.D.) | 39.36 ± 11.77 | 35.94 ± 10.17 | <0.001 | 39.36 ± 11.77 | 38.55 ± 10.92 | 0.392 |
| BMI (mean ± S.D.) | 22.08 ± 3.24 | 22.18 ± 2.96 | 0.649 | 22.08 ± 3.24 | 22.48 ± 3.12 | 0.131 |
| Self-report Health status (mean ± S.D.) | 70.40 ± 16.40 | 73.97 ± 15.15 | 0.002 | 70.40 ± 16.40 | 74.62 ± 14.70 | 0.003 |
| Family income [median, (p25, p75)] | 100,000 (6,000, 126,399) | 100,000 (58,000, 150,000) | 0.083 | 100,000 (6,000, 126,399) | 100,000 (50,000, 150,000) | 0.495 |
| Living expenditure [median, (p25, p75)] | 60,000 (35,750, 93,603) | 50,000 (30,000, 93,603) | 0.014 | 60,000 (35,750, 93,603) | 50,000 (30,000, 93,603) | 0.013 |
| Health expenditure [median, (p25, p75)] | 10,000 (4,250, 20,000) | 6,000 (2,500, 10,000) | 0.058 | 10,000 (4,250, 20,000) | 5,000 (2,000, 10,000) | 0.011 |
| Male | 139 (47.93%) | 236 (44.61%) | 0.362 | 139 (47.93%) | 129 (44.48%) | 0.405 |
| Female | 151 (52.07%) | 293 (55.39%) | 151 (52.07%) | 161 (55.52%) | ||
| Married | 212 (73.10%) | 376 (71.08%) | 0.538 | 212 (73.10%) | 210 (72.41%) | 0.852 |
| Single/widow/divorce | 78 (26.90%) | 153 (28.92%) | 78 (26.90%) | 80 (27.59%) | ||
| Middle school and below | 51 (17.59%) | 98 (18.53%) | 0.004 | 51 (17.59%) | 71 (24.48%) | 0.020 |
| High school or technical college | 154 (53.10%) | 200 (37.81%) | 154 (53.10%) | 122 (42.07%) | ||
| Bachelor and above | 85 (29.31%) | 231 (43.67%) | 85 (29.31%) | 97 (33.45%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Employed | 257 (88.62%) | 465 (87.90%) | 0.667 | 257 (88.62%) | 255 (87.93%) | 0.600 |
| Retired | 19 (6.55%) | 23 (4.35%) | 19 (6.55%) | 16 (5.52%) | ||
| Unemployed or else | 14 (4.83%) | 41 (7.75%) | 14 (4.83%) | 19 (6.55%) | ||
| 1–2 people | 17 (5.86%) | 48 (9.07%) | 0.151 | 17 (5.86%) | 19 (6.55%) | 0.591 |
| 3–4 people | 242 (83.45%) | 431 (81.47%) | 242 (83.45%) | 247 (85.17%) | ||
| 5 people- | 31 (10.69%) | 50 (9.45%) | 31 (10.69%) | 24 (8.28%) | ||
| Yes | 71 (24.48%) | 97 (18.34%) | 0.008 | 71 (24.48%) | 63 (21.72%) | 0.225 |
| No | 184 (63.45%) | 390 (73.72%) | 184 (63.45%) | 202 (69.66%) | ||
| I'm not sure | 35 (12.07%) | 42 (7.94%) | 35 (12.07%) | 25 (8.62%) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Yes | 100 (34.48%) | 280 (52.93%) | <0.001 | 190 (65.52) | 135 (46.55) | <0.001 |
| No | 190 (65.52%) | 249 (47.07%) | 100 (34.48) | 155 (53.45) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Yes | 77 (26.55%) | 170 (32.14%) | 0.096 | 213 (73.45) | 219 (75.52) | 0.851 |
| No | 213 (73.45%) | 359 (67.66%) | 77 (26.55) | 71 (24.48) | ||
PSM, Propensity Score Matching.
Satisfactions evaluation for health service among all interviewees and two groups.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||||
| I don't use it | 18 (6.21) | 18 (6.21) | 36 (6.21) | 5.128 | 0.400 |
| Very bad | 9 (3.10) | 3 (1.03) | 12 (2.07) | ||
| Bad | 18 (6.21) | 15 (5.17) | 33 (5.39) | ||
| Neutral | 102 (35.17) | 92 (31.72) | 194 (33.45) | ||
| Good | 119 (41.03) | 132 (45.52) | 251 (43.28) | ||
| Very good | 24 (8.28) | 30 (10.34) | 54 (9.31) | ||
|
| |||||
| I don't use it | 9 (3.10) | 7 (2.41) | 16 (2.76) | 8.608 | 0.126 |
| Very bad | 11 (3.79) | 2 (0.69) | 13 (2.24) | ||
| Bad | 22 (7.59) | 15 (5.17) | 37 (6.38) | ||
| Neutral | 87 (30.00) | 90 (31.03) | 177 (30.52) | ||
| Good | 131 (45.17) | 141 (48.62) | 272 (46.90) | ||
| Very good | 30 (10.34) | 35 (12.07) | 65 (11.21) | ||
|
| |||||
| I don't use it | 8 (2.76) | 16 (5.52) | 24 (4.13) | 9.518 | 0.090 |
| Very bad | 9 (3.10) | 6 (2.07) | 15 (2.59) | ||
| Bad | 20 (6.90) | 10 (3.45) | 30 (5.17) | ||
| Neutral | 94 (32.41) | 79 (27.24) | 173 (29.83) | ||
| Good | 134 (46.21) | 146 (50.34) | 280 (48.28) | ||
| Very good | 25 (8.62) | 33 (11.38) | 58 (10.00) | ||
|
| |||||
| I don't use it | 3 (1.03) | 11 (3.79) | 14 (2.41) | 11.405 | 0.044 |
| Very bad | 15 (5.17) | 5 (1.72) | 20 (3.45) | ||
| Bad | 49 (16.90) | 44 (15.17) | 93 (16.03) | ||
| Neutral | 105 (36.21) | 100 (34.48) | 205 (35.34) | ||
| Good | 103 (35.52) | 108 (37.24) | 211 (36.38) | ||
| Very good | 15 (5.17) | 22 (7.59) | 37 (6.38) | ||
|
| |||||
| I don't use it | 4 (1.38) | 8 (2.76) | 12 (2.07) | 10.272 | 0.068 |
| Very bad | 5 (1.72) | 4 (1.38) | 9 (1.55) | ||
| Bad | 10 (3.45) | 6 (2.07) | 16 (2.76) | ||
| Neutral | 109 (37.59) | 90 (31.03) | 199 (34.31) | ||
| Good | 144 (49.66) | 146 (50.34) | 290 (50.00) | ||
| Very good | 18 (6.21) | 36 (12.41) | 54 (9.319) | ||
Figure 1Change in health service utilization after obtaining urban Hukou (only migrants) [n, %].
Healthcare services utilization indicators of different group.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||||
| −1.0 km | 118 (43.38) | 104 (36.49) | 222 (38.28) | 8.917 | 0.112 |
| −2.0 km | 65 (23.90) | 90 (31.58) | 155 (26.72) | ||
| −3.0 km | 57 (20.96) | 50 (17.54) | 107 (18.45) | ||
| −4.0 km | 12 (4.41) | 14 (4.91) | 26 (4.48) | ||
| −5.0 km | 13 (4.78) | 11 (3.86) | 24 (4.14) | ||
| 5.0 km- | 7 (2.57) | 16 (5.61) | 23 (3.97) | ||
|
| |||||
| No visit | 30 (10.34) | 12 (4.41) | 42 (7.24) | 12.641 | 0.013 |
| −15 min | 194 (66.90) | 199 (68.62) | 393 (67.76) | ||
| −20 min | 40 (13.79) | 36 (12.41) | 76 (13.10) | ||
| −30 min | 16 (5.52) | 30 (10.34) | 46 (7.93) | ||
| 30 min- | 10 (3.45) | 13 (4.48) | 23 (3.97) | ||
|
| |||||
| EBMI | 219 (75.52) | 222 (72.76) | 430 (74.14) | 1.724 | 0.422 |
| RBMI | 63 (21.72) | 74 (25.52) | 137 (23.62) | ||
| No BMI | 8 (2.76) | 5 (1.72) | 13 (2.24) | ||
| Commercial insurance | 85 (29.31) | 79 (27.24) | 164 (28.27) | 0.306 | 0.580 |
|
| |||||
| Yes | 106 (55.79) | 94 (69.63) | 200 (61.54) | 6.387 | 0.011 |
| No | 84 (44.21) | 41 (30.37) | 125 (38.46) | ||
|
| |||||
| Yes | 40 (13.79) | 24 (8.28) | 64 (11.03) | 4.496 | 0.034 |
| No | 250 (86.21) | 266 (91.72) | 516 (88.97) | ||
.
Figure 2The proportion of annual health expenditures for the two groups (%).
Group regression model results for the impacts of actual health cost.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | −0.948 (−0.980) | −0.123 (−0.093) | −1.231 (−0.886) |
| Age | 0.026** (4.804) | 0.020* (2.390) | 0.026** (3.433) |
| Family members | 0.204** (4.927) | 0.212** (3.961) | 0.227** (3.593) |
| Family income# | 0.078 (0.978) | −0.031 (−0.290) | 0.214 (1.844) |
| Living expenditure# | 0.540** (8.882) | 0.612** (7.661) | 0.426** (4.714) |
| [gender = 1] | 0.004 (0.043) | −0.164 (−1.262) | 0.145 (1.095) |
| [gender = 2] | |||
| [marital status = 1] | 0.429** (3.773) | 0.323 (1.928) | 0.483** (3.110) |
| [marital status = 2] | |||
| [BHIS = 1] | 0.547 (1.771) | 0.896* (2.325) | 0.059 (0.123) |
| [BHIS = 2] | 0.601 (1.902) | 1.097** (2.745) | −0.028 (−0.059) |
| [BHIS = 3] | |||
| [employee = 1] | −0.131 (−0.621) | −0.419 (−1.347) | 0.106 (0.376) |
| [employee = 2] | −0.215 (−0.796) | −0.137 (−0.339) | −0.318 (−0.856) |
| [employee = 3] | |||
| [education = 1] | −0.042 (−0.256) | 0.207 (0.841) | −0.089 (−0.407) |
| [education = 2] | 0.002 (0.019) | 0.301 (1.966) | −0.266 (−1.597) |
| [education = 3] | |||
| [Health status = 1] | 0.437** (3.237) | 0.515** (2.748) | 0.285 (1.458) |
| [Health status = 2] | 0.443** (3.798) | 0.467** (2.733) | 0.370* (2.349) |
| [Health status = 3] | |||
| [commercial insurance = 1] | 0.148 (1.416) | 0.244 (1.711) | 0.065 (0.433) |
| [commercial insurance = 2] | |||
| N | 464 | 216 | 248 |
|
| 0.31 | 0.43 | 0.281 |
| Adjust | 0.286 | 0.388 | 0.234 |
| F | |||
| White's test | χ2 = 133.110, | χ2 = 125.767, | χ2 = 121.698, |
Dependence [actual health cost], Link function: OLS; * p <0.05 ** p < 0.01.
Transformed data were actual health cost, family income, family expenditure, and self-report health status.
# Data transformed method: ln; .