| Literature DB >> 36012031 |
Yijie Zhang1, Mingli Zhang1,2, Haiju Hu1, Xiaolong He3.
Abstract
The current situation and future development of the supply and demand coupling coordination of elderly care service resources reflect the level of elderly care service resource allocation. Whether factors affecting its development can be found is the key to promote the accurate allocation of elderly care service. Based on the coupling coordination model, the supply and demand of elderly care service resources, the development circumstance and the spatio-temporal evolution of supply and demand coupling coordination are analyzed in this paper by using the data of the elderly care service resources in 31 regions and autonomous regions in China from 2010 to 2019. The result shows that there are regional differences in the development of supply and demand coupling coordination of elderly care service resources. The degree of supply and demand coupling coordination of elderly care service resources in the western and northern regions is lower than that in the eastern and southern regions. Although the level in most areas of supply and demand coupling coordination of elderly care service resources will improve in the future, there is still a gap from good coordination. In order to strengthen the supply of elderly care service resources, and promote the upgrade of the supply and demand of elderly care service resources, the government should start from the demand of the elderly to increase investment in infrastructure construction, investment in elderly care services resources, talent training and other aspects.Entities:
Keywords: BP neural network prediction; elderly care service resources; spatio-temporal characteristics; supply and demand coupling coordination
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36012031 PMCID: PMC9408112 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the relationship between the key concepts.
Indexes of elderly care service supply system.
| Subsystem | First-Class Index | Second-Class Index | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elderly care service supply system X | Human | X1 Number of employees in pension institutions at the end of the year | pp |
| X2 Number of community service center employees at the end of the year | pp | ||
| Material | X3 Number of pension institutions | pcs | |
| X4 Number of beds for pension | pcs | ||
| X5 Building area of pension institution |
| ||
| X6 Number of community pension institutions | pcs | ||
| X7 Number of community day care beds | pcs | ||
| Financial | X8 Number of elderly receiving the old-age allowance | pp | |
| X9 Expenditure of welfare funds for the elderly | RMB Million Yuan | ||
| X10 The level of subsidy provided by ageing agencies | yuan/pp·year |
Indexes of elderly care service demand system.
| Subsystem | Index | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Elderly care service demand system Y | Y1 Number of people aged over 65 | pp |
| Y2 elderly dependency ratio | % | |
| Y3 Disposable income | yuan | |
| Y4 Number of elderly in pension institutions at the end of the year | pp |
Classification standard of coupling coordination level.
| Coupling Coordination Degree D | Coupling Coordination Level | Coordination Degree | Coupling Coordination Degree D | Coupling Coordination Level | Coordination Degree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [0, 0.1) | Extreme imbalance | Poor Coordination | [0.5, 0.6) | Barely balance | |
| [0.1, 0.2) | Serious imbalance | [0.6, 0.7) | Primary balance | Excellent Coordination | |
| [0.2, 0.3) | Moderate imbalance | [0.7, 0.8) | Moderate balance | ||
| [0.3, 0.4) | Mild imbalance | [0.8, 0.9) | Good balance | ||
| [0.4, 0.5) | Close to imbalance | Medium Coordination | [0.9, 1) | Excellent balance |
Coupling degree of 31 regions from 2010 to 2019 (actual data).
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beijing | 0.6171 | 0.6162 | 0.5946 | 0.6075 | 0.5594 | 0.6172 | 0.6342 | 0.6312 | 0.6192 | 0.6455 | 0.6142 |
| Tianjin | 0.4328 | 0.4147 | 0.4171 | 0.3823 | 0.3677 | 0.3985 | 0.3857 | 0.3929 | 0.4367 | 0.4574 | 0.4086 |
| Hebei | 0.5573 | 0.5516 | 0.5824 | 0.6522 | 0.6368 | 0.6470 | 0.6189 | 0.6313 | 0.6437 | 0.6425 | 0.6164 |
| Shanxi | 0.3941 | 0.3823 | 0.3842 | 0.3675 | 0.3687 | 0.3908 | 0.4232 | 0.3838 | 0.4051 | 0.4090 | 0.3909 |
| Inner Mongoria | 0.3971 | 0.4063 | 0.3988 | 0.4011 | 0.4440 | 0.4289 | 0.4142 | 0.4365 | 0.4321 | 0.4171 | 0.4176 |
| Liaoning | 0.5365 | 0.5235 | 0.5397 | 0.5369 | 0.5314 | 0.5675 | 0.5363 | 0.5558 | 0.5684 | 0.5558 | 0.5452 |
| Jilin | 0.3621 | 0.3567 | 0.3374 | 0.3260 | 0.3059 | 0.3803 | 0.4199 | 0.4442 | 0.4562 | 0.4674 | 0.3856 |
| Heilongjiang | 0.3973 | 0.3945 | 0.3889 | 0.3834 | 0.3947 | 0.4436 | 0.4402 | 0.4764 | 0.4842 | 0.4763 | 0.4280 |
| Shanghai | 0.6962 | 0.6484 | 0.6519 | 0.6328 | 0.5963 | 0.6684 | 0.7225 | 0.7396 | 0.7514 | 0.7615 | 0.6869 |
| Jiangsu | 0.8455 | 0.8624 | 0.8904 | 0.8561 | 0.8643 | 0.8839 | 0.8568 | 0.8571 | 0.8678 | 0.8478 | 0.8632 |
| Zhejiang | 0.7020 | 0.7304 | 0.7231 | 0.6911 | 0.7175 | 0.7217 | 0.7128 | 0.7440 | 0.7576 | 0.7342 | 0.7234 |
| Anhui | 0.6421 | 0.6234 | 0.6298 | 0.6286 | 0.5901 | 0.5750 | 0.5520 | 0.5889 | 0.6011 | 0.5991 | 0.6030 |
| Fujian | 0.4133 | 0.4246 | 0.4532 | 0.4228 | 0.4109 | 0.4288 | 0.4248 | 0.4366 | 0.4438 | 0.4532 | 0.4312 |
| Jiangxi | 0.5487 | 0.5261 | 0.4997 | 0.5135 | 0.4901 | 0.5054 | 0.4325 | 0.5138 | 0.5240 | 0.5293 | 0.5083 |
| Shandong | 0.8767 | 0.8566 | 0.8292 | 0.8093 | 0.8188 | 0.8053 | 0.7711 | 0.7351 | 0.7822 | 0.7810 | 0.8065 |
| Henan | 0.6554 | 0.6386 | 0.6328 | 0.6361 | 0.5958 | 0.5576 | 0.5382 | 0.5509 | 0.5673 | 0.6744 | 0.6047 |
| Hubei | 0.5944 | 0.6003 | 0.6097 | 0.5921 | 0.5801 | 0.6390 | 0.6269 | 0.6297 | 0.6471 | 0.6571 | 0.6176 |
| Hunan | 0.5745 | 0.5713 | 0.5839 | 0.5675 | 0.5465 | 0.5911 | 0.5757 | 0.5836 | 0.5880 | 0.6126 | 0.5795 |
| Guangdong | 0.6478 | 0.6591 | 0.6960 | 0.6747 | 0.6753 | 0.7002 | 0.7022 | 0.7305 | 0.7331 | 0.7243 | 0.6943 |
| Guangxi | 0.4428 | 0.4431 | 0.4191 | 0.4447 | 0.5025 | 0.4746 | 0.4459 | 0.4430 | 0.4335 | 0.4178 | 0.4467 |
| Hainan | 0.3138 | 0.3149 | 0.3250 | 0.3038 | 0.2657 | 0.3102 | 0.3110 | 0.2712 | 0.2364 | 0.2855 | 0.2938 |
| Chongqing | 0.5240 | 0.5367 | 0.5362 | 0.5054 | 0.4556 | 0.4953 | 0.4805 | 0.4864 | 0.4937 | 0.5079 | 0.5022 |
| Sichuan | 0.6983 | 0.7056 | 0.7095 | 0.7110 | 0.6492 | 0.7612 | 0.7377 | 0.7404 | 0.7361 | 0.7299 | 0.7179 |
| Guizhou | 0.3331 | 0.3519 | 0.4020 | 0.4270 | 0.3720 | 0.4631 | 0.4448 | 0.4434 | 0.4634 | 0.4438 | 0.4145 |
| Yunnan | 0.4568 | 0.4513 | 0.4402 | 0.4134 | 0.3528 | 0.4305 | 0.4197 | 0.3942 | 0.3886 | 0.3950 | 0.4143 |
| Tibet | 0.1660 | 0.1412 | 0.1303 | 0.0884 | 0.0796 | 0.1115 | 0.1424 | 0.1306 | 0.1473 | 0.0789 | 0.1216 |
| Shaanxi | 0.4415 | 0.4638 | 0.5136 | 0.5126 | 0.4471 | 0.4632 | 0.4925 | 0.4938 | 0.5042 | 0.5155 | 0.4848 |
| Gansu | 0.3080 | 0.3366 | 0.3440 | 0.3445 | 0.2879 | 0.3064 | 0.3443 | 0.3512 | 0.3581 | 0.3315 | 0.3313 |
| Qinghai | 0.2170 | 0.2193 | 0.1912 | 0.2117 | 0.1851 | 0.2047 | 0.2095 | 0.2230 | 0.2136 | 0.2229 | 0.2098 |
| Ningxia | 0.2203 | 0.1951 | 0.1853 | 0.1837 | 0.1721 | 0.2034 | 0.2163 | 0.2420 | 0.2318 | 0.2279 | 0.2078 |
| Xinjiang | 0.2856 | 0.3294 | 0.3043 | 0.3299 | 0.2811 | 0.3029 | 0.3027 | 0.3026 | 0.3246 | 0.3034 | 0.3067 |
Coupling degree of 31 regions from 2020 to 2024 (predicted data).
| 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beijing | 0.6186 | 0.6353 | 0.6407 | 0.6443 | 0.6281 | 0.6334 |
| Tianjin | 0.4243 | 0.4178 | 0.4189 | 0.4176 | 0.4302 | 0.4218 |
| Hebei | 0.6131 | 0.6224 | 0.6181 | 0.6383 | 0.6314 | 0.6247 |
| Shanxi | 0.3841 | 0.3954 | 0.3878 | 0.3973 | 0.3901 | 0.3909 |
| Inner Mongoria | 0.3968 | 0.4039 | 0.3926 | 0.4086 | 0.4006 | 0.4005 |
| Liaoning | 0.5317 | 0.5346 | 0.5096 | 0.5324 | 0.5347 | 0.5286 |
| Jilin | 0.4435 | 0.4476 | 0.4298 | 0.4408 | 0.4283 | 0.4380 |
| Heilongjiang | 0.4329 | 0.4559 | 0.4399 | 0.4602 | 0.4608 | 0.4499 |
| Shanghai | 0.7021 | 0.7049 | 0.7008 | 0.7145 | 0.7161 | 0.7077 |
| Jiangsu | 0.7783 | 0.8069 | 0.7885 | 0.8241 | 0.8272 | 0.8050 |
| Zhejiang | 0.6878 | 0.6906 | 0.6661 | 0.6741 | 0.6915 | 0.6820 |
| Anhui | 0.5757 | 0.5840 | 0.5670 | 0.5938 | 0.5870 | 0.5815 |
| Fujian | 0.4209 | 0.4369 | 0.4312 | 0.4429 | 0.4365 | 0.4337 |
| Jiangxi | 0.4871 | 0.4977 | 0.4905 | 0.5112 | 0.5088 | 0.4991 |
| Shandong | 0.7407 | 0.7456 | 0.7416 | 0.7625 | 0.7653 | 0.7511 |
| Henan | 0.6262 | 0.6468 | 0.6686 | 0.7229 | 0.7040 | 0.6737 |
| Hubei | 0.6239 | 0.6263 | 0.6162 | 0.6499 | 0.6392 | 0.6311 |
| Hunan | 0.5719 | 0.5886 | 0.5759 | 0.5987 | 0.5826 | 0.5835 |
| Guangdong | 0.6869 | 0.7199 | 0.7000 | 0.7246 | 0.7157 | 0.7094 |
| Guangxi | 0.3907 | 0.3999 | 0.3890 | 0.3949 | 0.3921 | 0.3933 |
| Hainan | 0.2560 | 0.2941 | 0.2920 | 0.3140 | 0.2956 | 0.2903 |
| Chongqing | 0.4785 | 0.4752 | 0.4649 | 0.4807 | 0.4917 | 0.4782 |
| Sichuan | 0.7036 | 0.7183 | 0.6820 | 0.7039 | 0.6900 | 0.6996 |
| Guizhou | 0.4261 | 0.4290 | 0.4044 | 0.4110 | 0.4213 | 0.4184 |
| Yunnan | 0.3501 | 0.3764 | 0.3641 | 0.3805 | 0.3683 | 0.3679 |
| Tibet | 0.0510 | 0.1905 | 0.0670 | 0.0710 | 0.0659 | 0.0891 |
| Shaanxi | 0.5007 | 0.5016 | 0.4701 | 0.4877 | 0.4872 | 0.4895 |
| Gansu | 0.2635 | 0.2693 | 0.3045 | 0.3087 | 0.3414 | 0.2975 |
| Qinghai | 0.3370 | 0.2944 | 0.3056 | 0.2909 | 0.3141 | 0.3084 |
| Ningxia | 0.1758 | 0.2305 | 0.2419 | 0.2377 | 0.2479 | 0.2268 |
| Xinjiang | 0.4015 | 0.3517 | 0.3361 | 0.3150 | 0.3548 | 0.3518 |
Figure 2Supply and demand coupling coordination in each region from 2010 to 2019. (a) Supply index of elderly care service X. (b) Demand index of elderly care service Y.
Index weight in the elderly care service resource supply/demand system from 2010 to 2019 (actual data).
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | 0.0574 | 0.0568 | 0.0562 | 0.0506 | 0.0802 | 0.0665 | 0.0857 | 0.0661 | 0.0606 | 0.0704 |
| X2 | 0.0642 | 0.0652 | 0.0649 | 0.0572 | 0.069 | 0.0681 | 0.063 | 0.0678 | 0.0632 | 0.0711 |
| X3 | 0.081 | 0.0759 | 0.0776 | 0.0685 | 0.0643 | 0.0747 | 0.0699 | 0.0767 | 0.0812 | 0.0792 |
| X4 | 0.0799 | 0.0718 | 0.0737 | 0.0775 | 0.09 | 0.0791 | 0.0714 | 0.0712 | 0.0759 | 0.0692 |
| X5 | 0.1302 | 0.1471 | 0.1455 | 0.1137 | 0.0946 | 0.1196 | 0.1026 | 0.115 | 0.1069 | 0.113 |
| X6 | 0.0785 | 0.084 | 0.0941 | 0.1112 | 0.1205 | 0.1233 | 0.112 | 0.1148 | 0.1167 | 0.0965 |
| X7 | 0.0968 | 0.0876 | 0.0898 | 0.0946 | 0.0995 | 0.1106 | 0.1053 | 0.1094 | 0.1006 | 0.096 |
| X8 | 0.1816 | 0.1766 | 0.1769 | 0.1914 | 0.1764 | 0.1396 | 0.1294 | 0.1398 | 0.1439 | 0.1459 |
| X9 | 0.0744 | 0.0763 | 0.0593 | 0.0693 | 0.06 | 0.0618 | 0.0929 | 0.1002 | 0.1085 | 0.1081 |
| X10 | 0.156 | 0.1589 | 0.1621 | 0.166 | 0.1454 | 0.1568 | 0.1678 | 0.139 | 0.1324 | 0.1507 |
| Y1 | 0.2106 | 0.2332 | 0.2312 | 0.2493 | 0.3004 | 0.2958 | 0.2462 | 0.2262 | 0.2355 | 0.242 |
| Y2 | 0.1021 | 0.1286 | 0.12 | 0.1083 | 0.1183 | 0.1081 | 0.0913 | 0.1145 | 0.1133 | 0.1111 |
| Y3 | 0.3175 | 0.3011 | 0.3163 | 0.2779 | 0.2671 | 0.2961 | 0.332 | 0.3568 | 0.3673 | 0.3692 |
| Y4 | 0.3697 | 0.3371 | 0.3324 | 0.3645 | 0.3141 | 0.3 | 0.3305 | 0.3025 | 0.2838 | 0.2778 |
Index weight in the elderly care service resource supply/demand system from 2020 to 2024 (forecast data).
| 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | 0.0702 | 0.0695 | 0.0675 | 0.0622 | 0.0653 |
| X2 | 0.0711 | 0.0716 | 0.0713 | 0.0685 | 0.0712 |
| X3 | 0.0808 | 0.0826 | 0.0797 | 0.0752 | 0.0806 |
| X4 | 0.0717 | 0.0637 | 0.0589 | 0.0612 | 0.0615 |
| X5 | 0.1099 | 0.1146 | 0.1097 | 0.1031 | 0.1028 |
| X6 | 0.1122 | 0.1094 | 0.101 | 0.0969 | 0.1015 |
| X7 | 0.0993 | 0.1001 | 0.1001 | 0.1101 | 0.1112 |
| X8 | 0.1398 | 0.1388 | 0.135 | 0.1375 | 0.1382 |
| X9 | 0.1083 | 0.1103 | 0.1085 | 0.1161 | 0.1122 |
| X10 | 0.1365 | 0.1394 | 0.1684 | 0.1691 | 0.1555 |
| Y1 | 0.2469 | 0.2406 | 0.2373 | 0.2705 | 0.2445 |
| Y2 | 0.1259 | 0.1267 | 0.1351 | 0.0757 | 0.15 |
| Y3 | 0.3631 | 0.3663 | 0.3643 | 0.3559 | 0.3351 |
| Y4 | 0.2642 | 0.2664 | 0.2633 | 0.298 | 0.2703 |
Moran’s I index (2010–2024).
| Year | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.186 | 0.201 | 0.146 | 0.143 | 0.153 |
| Year | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
|
| 0.107 | 0.186 | 0.201 | 0.146 | 0.143 |
| Year | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
|
| 0.153 | 0.107 | 0.186 | 0.201 | 0.146 |
Figure 3The spatial distribution of the coupling coordination degree of 31 regions (2010 to 2019).
Figure 4Coupling degree between supply and demand in every region from 2010 to 2019.
Figure 5The mean coupling degree of supply and demand among various regions from 2010 to 2019.
Figure 6The spatial distribution of the coupling coordination degree of 31 regions (2020 to 2024).
Figure 7Coupling degree between supply and demand in every region from 2020 to 2024.
Figure A2Performance of BP neural network training.
Figure 8The mean degree of supply and demand coupling among various regions from 2020 to 2024.