| Literature DB >> 36078803 |
Yingya Yang1, Liangliang Zhou2, Chongmei Zhang3, Xin Luo3, Yihan Luo3, Wei Wang3.
Abstract
With the successful completion of the battle against poverty, after 2020, the focus and difficulty of China's poverty governance will change from solving absolute poverty to alleviating relative poverty. Analyzing and studying the alleviation of relative poverty from the perspective of public health services is in line with the current needs of consolidating and expanding poverty alleviation in China, and it is also of great significance to building a long-term solution mechanism for relative poverty. In this study, basic panel data were constructed by using the data of five CFPS surveys in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 and matched with the macro data. The correlation between public health services and rural households' relative poverty was also analyzed by using logit regression analysis and the KHB mediation effect decomposition method. The results show that (1) public health services play a significant role in promoting the accumulation of health human capital, improving individual feasible ability, and alleviating the relative poverty of rural families; (2) the improvement of public health services is conducive to the alleviation of the relative poverty of rural families; (3) we should continue to increase investment in public health care in underdeveloped areas and strive to promote the balanced development of public health services, so as to further consolidate and expand the achievements of poverty eradication.Entities:
Keywords: healthy human capital; public health services; relative poverty
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078803 PMCID: PMC9518469 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191711089
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Analysis framework of poverty reduction by public health services.
Variable description and descriptive statistics.
| Variable Name | Variable Description | Mean | SD a | MIN | MAX |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family relative poverty (Pov) | 1 = Poverty | 0.21072 | 0.40783 | 0 | 1 |
| Public health services (Pubmed) | Per capita financial medical and health expenditure (CNY) | 637.08610 | 268.54480 | 199.83100 | 1704.61700 |
| Age of householder | Year | 47.65101 | 16.75277 | 10 | 99 |
| Education level of householder (Aedu) | Year | 5.89187 | 4.40064 | 0 | 22 |
| Family health human capital (Heapop) | Family self-rated healthy population/total family population | 0.81935 | 0.26627 | 0 | 1 |
| Time spent by the family away from the nearest business street (Cdis) | minute | 36.60226 | 59.45423 | 1 | 1440 |
| Whether the family is farming | 1 = Engage in agricultural work, 0 = not engaged in agricultural work | 0.81585 | 0.38762 | 0 | 1 |
| Family health expenditure (Afmedcost) | Per capita health care expenditure of households (CNY) | 1273.3460 | 4303.7340 | 0 | 246,666.70 |
| Family burden coefficient (Bur) | Family non-working age population/working age population | 0.36143 | 0.59995 | 0 | 10 |
| Geographical location of the village | Distance between village and county (LI) | 44.11037 | 37.13605 | 0 | 280 |
| Industrial structure (Third) | Proportion of tertiary industry in the province (%) | 41.90452 | 6.79345 | 29.30 | 69.17880 |
a SD = standard deviation.
Logit regression of poverty reduction by public health services.
| Independent Variable | Coefficient | Odds Ratio |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Pubmed | −0.00210 *** | 0.99791 *** | −0.00027 *** |
| Age | −0.04382 *** | 0.95713 *** | −0.00558 *** |
| Age2 | 0.00063 *** | 1.00063 *** | 0.00008 *** |
| Aedu | −0.05400 *** | 0.94743*** | −0.00688 *** |
| Lnafmedcost | −0.02146 *** | 0.97877 *** | −0.00273 *** |
| Cdis | 0.00214 *** | 1.00214 *** | 0.00027 *** |
| Farm | −0.27129 *** | 0.76240 *** | −0.03456 *** |
| Bur | 0.23207 *** | 1.26121 *** | 0.02956 *** |
| Cdistance | 0.00392 *** | 1.00393 *** | 0.00050 *** |
| Third | −0.00835 | 0.99168 | −0.00317 |
| Constant term | −0.34084 | 0.71117 | _ |
| Observations | 19,890 | 19,890 | 19,890 |
Note: The standard errors are presented in brackets. *** is statistically significant at 1%.
Intermediary effect of family health human capital.
| Independent Variable | (1) | (2) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heapop | Pov | ||
| Coefficient | Odds ratio |
| |
| Pubmed | 0.00007 *** | 0.99797 *** | −0.00026 *** |
| Heapop | 0.35703 *** | −0.13132 *** | |
| Lnafmedcost | −0.00722 *** | 0.96972 *** | −0.00392 *** |
| Age | 0.00030 | 0.95569 *** | −0.00578 *** |
| Age2 | −0.00002 *** | 1.00062 *** | 0.00008 *** |
| Cdis | −0.00008 * | 1.00206 *** | 0.00026 *** |
| Cdistance | −0.00008 | 1.00379 *** | 0.00048 *** |
| Farm | 0.02003 *** | 0.78939 *** | −0.03015 *** |
| Bur | 0.05296 *** | 1.34931 *** | 0.03820 *** |
| Aedu | 0.00412 *** | 0.95211 *** | −0.00626 *** |
| Third | −0.00095 ** | 0.99091 * | −0.00116 *** |
| Constant term | 0.86184 *** | 1.78025 * | — |
| Observations | 19,890 | 19,890 | |
Note: The standard errors are presented in brackets. ***, **, and * are statistically significant at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Breakdown of the impact of public health services on poverty reduction.
| Core Explanatory Variables | Intermediary Variable | Dependent Variable (POV) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pubmed | Heapop | Total effect | −0.00028 ** |
| (0.00012) | |||
| Direct effect | −0.00023 * | ||
| (0.00012) | |||
| Indirect effect | −0.00005 *** | ||
| (0.00001) | |||
| Indirect effect/Total effect | 18.56% | ||
Note: The standard errors are presented in brackets. ***, **, and * are statistically significant at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Robustness test of public health services for poverty reduction.
| Estimation Method | Probit | Logit | Probit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variable | Pov | Pov1 | Pov1 |
| Model Number | (1) | (2) | (3) |
| Pubmed | −0.00025 *** | −0.00030 *** | −0.00028 *** |
| Heapop | −0.13364 *** | −0.16094 *** | −0.16899 *** |
| Other control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Observations | 19,890 | 19,890 | 19,890 |
| Total effect | −0.00017 ** | −0.00024 ** | −0.00014 ** |
| Direct effect | −0.00014 ** | −0.00020 * | −0.00011 * |
| Indirect effect | −0.00003 *** | −0.00004 *** | −0.00003 *** |
| Indirect effect/Total effect | 17.56% | 16.58% | 23.55% |
Note: The regression results reported by the three models are the average marginal effect coefficient. The standard errors are presented in brackets. ***, **, and * are statistically significant at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.