| Literature DB >> 35893202 |
Peiyi Lu1, Chunyu Yang2, Jun Yao3, Mingxia Xian4, Mack Shelley1.
Abstract
(1) Background: Low-income rural residents in China are disadvantaged due to their financial vulnerability and insufficient access to resources, and this situation demands more research effort. This study examined the pattern of outpatient service satisfaction and its determinants among low-income adults in rural China. (2)Entities:
Keywords: latent class analysis; outpatient satisfaction; rural low-income adults
Year: 2022 PMID: 35893202 PMCID: PMC9330119 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10081380
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Descriptive characteristics of the respondents, N = 662.
| Variable | Mean ± SD/Median (Skewness) | Variable | Mean ± SD/Median (Skewness) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age range (19–92) | 62.46 ± 13.00 | Dibao eligibility status—yes | 335 (50.60) | ||
| Gender—male | 406 (61.33) | Dibao eligibility status—no | 325 (49.09) | ||
| Gender—female | 256 (38.67) | Dibao eligibility status—missing | 2 (0.30) | ||
| Education—illiterate | 246 (37.16) | Years in Dibao assistance range (0–25) | 0.33 (3.02) | ||
| Education—primary school | 232 (35.04) | ADL range (0–6) | 0 (2) | ||
| Education—middle school | 151 (22.81) | Major illness—yes | 216 (32.63) | ||
| Education—high school and above | 33 (4.98) | Major illness—no | 440 (66.47) | ||
| Marital status—unmarried | 87 (13.14) | Major illness—missing | 6 (0.91) | ||
| Marital status—married | 425 (64.20) | Amount of medical fee range (0–70) | 0.30 (4.15) | ||
| Marital status—widowed/divorced/separated | 148 (22.36) | Proportion of self-pay fee | 0.27 (0.72) | ||
| Marital status—missing | 2 (0.30) | Level of healthcare facility—village clinic | 437 (66.01) | ||
| Income—no income/in debt | 303 (45.77) | Level of healthcare facility—town hospital | 129 (19.49) | ||
| Income—CNY 0~6000 | 255 (38.52) | Level of healthcare facility—county hospital | 96 (14.50) | ||
| Income—CNY > 6000 | 104 (15.71) |
Note: when the distribution of the variable was highly skewed, median and skewness were used to describe.
Correlations between continuous/ordinal demographic, financial, and health measures.
| Age | Education | Income | Years of Poverty | ADL | Amount of Medical Fee | Proportion of Self-Pay Fee | Level of Healthcare Facility | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 1 | |||||||
| Education | −0.29 *** | 1 | ||||||
| Income | −0.08 * | 0.03 | 1 | |||||
| Years of poverty | 0.03 | 0.02 | −0.08 * | 1 | ||||
| ADL | −0.04 | −0.03 | −0.11 ** | 0.07 | 1 | |||
| Amount of medical fee | −0.09 * | 0.08 * | −0.09 * | −0.06 | 0.14 *** | 1 | ||
| Proportion of self-pay fee | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.08 * | −0.03 | −0.02 | 0.15 *** | 1 | |
| Level of healthcare facility | −0.18 *** | 0.08 * | −0.13 *** | −0.05 | 0.09 * | 0.48 *** | 0.19 *** | 1 |
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Frequency distribution of 11 satisfaction indicators, N = 662.
| Indicators | Poor | Fair | Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time waiting | 124 (18.73) | 259 (39.12) | 279 (42.15) |
| Environment | 43 (6.50) | 279 (42.15) | 340 (51.36) |
| Understandable | 17 (2.57) | 246 (37.16) | 399 (60.27) |
| Seriousness | 5 (0.76) | 226 (34.14) | 431 (65.11) |
| Show respect | 7 (1.06) | 214 (32.33) | 441 (66.62) |
| Time treating | 199 (30.06) | 207 (31.27) | 256 (38.67) |
| Trust in doctors | 11 (1.66) | 229 (34.59) | 422 (63.75) |
| Cost | 99 (14.95) | 396 (59.82) | 167 (25.23) |
| Service quality | 25 (3.78) | 249 (37.61) | 388 (58.61) |
| Convenience | 38 (5.74) | 260 (39.27) | 364 (54.98) |
| Overall satisfaction | 15 (2.27) | 268 (40.48) | 379 (57.25) |
Model fit for the optimal number of classes characterized by outpatient satisfaction.
| Model | Log-Likelihood | Resid. | BIC | ABIC | AIC | CAIC | Entropy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class 1 | −6125.09 | 640 | 12,393.08 | 12,323.23 | 12,294.18 | 12,415.08 | - |
| Class 2 | −4638.71 | 617 | 9569.71 | 9426.83 | 9367.42 | 9614.71 | 0.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Class 4 | −4416.67 | 571 | 9424.41 | 9135.48 | 9015.34 | 9515.41 | 0.83 |
| Class 5 | −4338.59 | 548 | 9417.64 | 9055.69 | 8905.18 | 9531.64 | 0.85 |
Note: Resid. df = degrees of freedom of residuals; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; AIC = Akaike information criterion; ABIC = adjusted BIC, CAIC = consistent AIC. The 3-class model in bold had the smallest BIC value.
Conditional probability of “good” patient satisfaction indicators in the 3-class model.
| Indicators | Class 1 | Class 2 | Class 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| low satisfaction | medium satisfaction | high satisfaction | |
| Time waiting | 0.07 | 0.39 | 0.63 |
| Environment | 0.05 | 0.41 | 0.83 |
| Understandable | 0.06 | 0.50 | 0.96 |
| Seriousness | 0.00 | 0.73 | 0.99 |
| Show respect | 0.05 | 0.75 | 0.99 |
| Time treating | 0.01 | 0.29 | 0.64 |
| Trust in doctors | 0.06 | 0.61 | 0.98 |
| Cost | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.43 |
| Service quality | 0.06 | 0.45 | 0.95 |
| Convenience | 0.09 | 0.35 | 0.90 |
| Overall satisfaction | 0.19 | 0.33 | 0.90 |
Multinomial logistic regression models results predicting outpatient satisfaction class membership.
| Class 1 vs. Class 3 | Class 2 vs. Class 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low vs. High Satisfaction | Medium vs. High Satisfaction | |||
| RRR | 95%CI | RRR | 95%CI | |
| Age | 0.98 | (96, 1.00) | 0.99 | (0.97, 1.00) |
| Gender—female | 0.56 ** | (0.37, 0.86) | 0.72 | (0.45, 1.15) |
| Education | 0.85 | (0.64, 1.14) | 0.99 | (0.76, 1.28) |
| Marital status—married | 1.50 | (0.91, 2.49) | 0.83 | (0.38, 1.82) |
| Marital status—widowed/divorced/separated | 1.51 | (0.71, 3.23) | 0.94 | (0.40, 2.18) |
| Income | 0.61 ** | (0.44, 0.84) | 0.94 | (0.69, 1.29) |
| Dibao eligibility status—no | 1.41 | (0.83, 2.41) | 0.60 | (0.31, 1.14) |
| Years in Dibao assistance | 0.94 | (0.85, 1.05) | 0.85 | (0.71, 1.01) |
| ADL | 1.04 | (0.91, 1.18) | 1.02 | (0.88, 1.18) |
| Major illness—no | 0.67 | (0.44, 1.03) | 0.77 | (0.49, 1.20) |
| Amount of medical fee | 1.01 | (0.98, 1.05) | 1.04 * | (1.00, 1.07) |
| Proportion of self-pay fees | 4.31 *** | (1.95, 9.53) | 2.74 ** | (1.41, 5.33) |
| Level of healthcare facility—town hospital | 1.32 | (0.74, 2.35) | 1.60 | (0.97, 2.66) |
| Level of healthcare facility—county hospital | 1.65 | (0.70, 3.89) | 2.05 | (0.95, 4.43) |
Note: RRR = relative risk ratios; CI = confidence interval. Class 3 high satisfaction group was the reference group. The reference level for categorical variables: male for gender; unmarried for marital status; yes for Dibao eligibility status; yes for major illness; village clinic for level of healthcare facility. The standard errors were estimated by the bootstrapping method. Log-likelihood = −615.74, Wald Chi-square (30) = 130.55, Pseudo R2 = 0.0790. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.