| Literature DB >> 36091535 |
Chenglin Tu1,2, Chuanxiang Zang1,2, Yuanfang Tan1, Yu Zhou1, Chenyang Yu1,2.
Abstract
Existing studies ignore the importance of information infrastructure development in improving regional health care environment. This paper adopts a spatial difference-in-difference (DID) model to assess the impact of information infrastructure development on urban health care environment based on a quasi-natural experiment of the "Broadband China" city pilots (BCCP). A balanced panel of 259 cities from 2010 to 2019 is selected for empirical analysis in this paper. Our findings show that the implementation of BCCP resulted in a 4.1 and 2.9% improvement in local medical workforce and medical infrastructure. In addition, there is significant spatial spillover effects of the implementation of BCCP, with 7.2 and 12.5% improvement in medical workforce and medical infrastructure in the surrounding areas. Our findings also suggest that information infrastructure development enhances the health care environment by driving industrial upgrading and education levels. Further analysis shows that BCCP has the strongest improvement on medical workforce in the eastern region and non-ordinary prefecture-level cities. For medical infrastructure, BCCP has stronger improvement in central region, western region, and non-ordinary prefecture-level cities. Finally, the paper conducts a series of robustness tests to ensure the reliability of the analysis results, including parallel trend tests, placebo tests, and re-estimation with different methods. Policies to improve the health care environment through information infrastructure development are proposed.Entities:
Keywords: health care environment; information infrastructure; mechanism analysis; spatial difference-in-difference model; spatial spillover effects
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36091535 PMCID: PMC9455779 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.987391
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Spatial distribution of the implementation of BCCP.
Variable definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable | ln | Medical workforce | Logarithm of the total number of doctors in the city |
| ln | Medical infrastructure | Logarithm of the total number of hospital beds in the city | |
| Independent variables | BCCP | Broadband China city pilots | Takes the value of 1 if BCCP is implemented, 0 otherwise |
| Control variables | ln | Economic development | Logarithm of GDP per capita |
| ln | Total population | Logarithm of population | |
| ln | Foreign investment | Logarithm of foreign investment | |
|
| Government intervention | Government expenditure/GDP | |
|
| Financial development | Financial institution deposits/GDP | |
|
| Industry structure | Value-added ratio of tertiary industry | |
|
| Education level | Average years of education per capita |
Descriptive statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ln | 2,590 | 8.975 | 0.725 | 6.804 | 8.949 | 11.659 |
| ln | 2,590 | 9.675 | 0.680 | 7.657 | 9.656 | 12.086 |
| BCCP | 2,590 | 0.196 | 0.397 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| ln | 2,590 | 10.679 | 0.578 | 8.881 | 10.645 | 13.056 |
| ln | 2,590 | 5.936 | 0.641 | 3.922 | 5.958 | 8.134 |
| ln | 2,590 | 10.093 | 1.852 | 1.099 | 10.174 | 14.941 |
|
| 2,590 | 1.395 | 0.614 | 0.371 | 1.252 | 7.203 |
|
| 2,590 | 0.187 | 0.085 | 0.044 | 0.168 | 1.485 |
|
| 2,590 | 40.573 | 9.888 | 14.360 | 39.675 | 83.520 |
|
| 2,590 | 9.119 | 0.530 | 7.679 | 9.096 | 12.701 |
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ln | 9.063 | 9.763 | 7.72% | 8.396 | 8.722 | 3.88% |
| ln | 9.823 | 10.687 | 8.80% | 9.396 | 9.634 | 2.53% |
Figure 2The spatial distribution of health care environment. The plots in the first row denote the spatial distribution of medical workforce (ln) in 2010 and 2019. The plots in the second row denote the spatial distribution of medical infrastructure (ln) in 2010 and 2019.
Figure 3Moran scatterplot of health care environment in 2010. The left graph denotes the Moran scatterplot of medical workforce (ln) and the right graph denotes the Moran scatterplot of medical infrastructure (ln).
Figure 4Moran scatterplot of health care environment in 2019. The left graph denotes the Moran scatterplot of medical workforce (ln) and the right graph denotes the Moran scatterplot of medical infrastructure (ln).
Calculation of Moran's I index of health care environment.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 2010 | 0.088 | 2.871 | 0.060 | 1.979 |
| 2011 | 0.053 | 1.779 | 0.047 | 1.578 |
| 2012 | 0.093 | 3.035 | 0.060 | 1.980 |
| 2013 | 0.078 | 2.551 | 0.062 | 2.069 |
| 2014 | 0.097 | 3.142 | 0.063 | 2.090 |
| 2015 | 0.099 | 3.200 | 0.052 | 1.738 |
| 2016 | 0.087 | 2.840 | 0.056 | 1.879 |
| 2017 | 0.089 | 2.887 | 0.085 | 2.764 |
| 2018 | 0.079 | 2.578 | 0.083 | 2.715 |
| 2019 | 0.073 | 2.394 | 0.083 | 2.720 |
denote significant at the 1, 5, and 10% level.
Impact of information infrastructure development and health care environment.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| BCCP | 0.075 | 0.048 | 0.037 | 0.015 | 0.036 | 0.014 | 0.039 | 0.023 |
| ln | 0.406 | 0.367 | 0.126 | 0.090 | 0.129 | 0.096 | 0.285 | 0.208 |
| (0.014) | (0.011) | (0.027) | (0.016) | (0.027) | (0.017) | (0.026) | (0.017) | |
| ln | 0.714 | 0.572 | 0.550 | 0.471 | 0.556 | 0.481 | 0.649 | 0.527 |
| (0.063) | (0.047) | (0.059) | (0.036) | (0.059) | (0.036) | (0.060) | (0.039) | |
| ln | −0.005 | 0.007 | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.006 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| (0.004) | (0.003) | (0.004) | (0.002) | (0.004) | (0.002) | (0.004) | (0.003) | |
|
| 0.167 | 0.111 | 0.041 | 0.007 | 0.042 | 0.009 | 0.105 | 0.045 |
| (0.016) | (0.012) | (0.018) | (0.011) | (0.018) | (0.011) | (0.018) | (0.012) | |
|
| −0.048 | 0.342 | −0.282 | 0.042 | −0.276 | 0.039 | −0.156 | 0.140 |
| (0.088) | (0.066) | 0.037 | (0.051) | (0.083) | (0.051) | (0.085) | (0.055) | |
| wBCCP | 0.061 | 0.044 | ||||||
| (0.026) | (0.017) | |||||||
| wln | 0.089 | −0.066 | ||||||
| (0.037) | (0.024) | |||||||
| wln | −0.199 | −0.541 | ||||||
| (0.155) | (0.100) | |||||||
| wln | −0.045 | 0.024 | ||||||
| (0.010) | (0.006) | |||||||
|
| 0.020 | −0.044 | ||||||
| (0.037) | (0.024) | |||||||
|
| 0.005 | 0.520 | ||||||
| (0.261) | (0.171) | |||||||
| City FE | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Year FE | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Obs | 2590 | 2590 | 2590 | 2590 | 2590 | 2590 | 2590 | 2590 |
| Log-L | 342.74 | 472.33 | 1322.89 | 2586.61 | 1323.76 | 2589.97 | 1265.17 | 2334.54 |
| R | 0.469 | 0.810 | 0.817 | 0.854 | 0.549 | 0.820 | 0.822 | 0.593 |
symbols indicate the significant at the 1% level, 5% level, and 10% level respectively. City FE and Year FE denote the city fixed effects and year fixed effects.
Direct effect, indirect effect, and total effect of SDM in Table 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct | ln | 0.041 | 0.287 | 0.653 | −0.001 | 0.106 | −0.152 |
| effect | (0.012) | (0.025) | (0.058) | (0.004) | (0.018) | (0.084) | |
| ln | 0.029 | 0.212 | 0.510 | 0.007 | 0.043 | 0.199 | |
| (0.008) | (0.016) | (0.040) | (0.003) | (0.012) | (0.060) | ||
| Indirect | ln | 0.072 | 0.143 | −0.105 | −0.049 | 0.038 | 0.006 |
| effect | (0.028) | (0.034) | (0.168) | (0.010) | (0.040) | (0.299) | |
| ln | 0.125 | 0.115 | −0.500 | 0.060 | −0.041 | 1.350 | |
| (0.035) | (0.036) | (0.222) | (0.013) | (0.052) | (0.387) | ||
| Total | ln | 0.113 | 0.429 | 0.548 | −0.049 | 0.144 | −0.146 |
| effect | (0.028) | (0.027) | (0.182) | (0.011) | (0.045) | (0.322) | |
| ln | 0.154 | 0.326 | 0.010 | 0.066 | 0.002 | 1.549 | |
| (0.037) | (0.036) | (0.242) | (0.014) | (0.058) | (0.419) |
denote significant at the 1, 5, and 10% level.
Figure 5Results of Parallel Trend Test. The dependent variable in the left panel is medical workforce (ln) and the dependent variable in the right panel is medical infrastructure (ln). The X-axis denotes the window period for BCCP implementation. The Y axis represents the regression coefficient of BCCP. The year before BCCP is implemented as the base period.
Mechanisms of information infrastructure affects the health care environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCCP | 0.085 | 0.057 | 0.051 | 0.251 | 0.078 | 0.056 |
| (0.003) | (0.012) | (0.009) | (0.012) | (0.016) | (0.009) | |
|
| 0.612 | 0.315 | ||||
| (0.093) | (0.070) | |||||
|
| 0.085 | 0.047 | ||||
| (0.031) | (0.018) | |||||
| C | 0.389 | 0.797 | 1.979 | 9.065 | 3.136 | 3.147 |
| (0.001) | (0.386) | (0.291) | (0.005) | (0.751) | (0.312) | |
| Control | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| City FE | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Year FE | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Obs | 2,590 | 2,590 | 2,590 | 2,590 | 2,590 | 2,590 |
| F-static | 714.181 | 305.227 | 515.698 | 406.731 | 52.750 | 216.989 |
| Adj-R2 | 0.150 | 0.420 | 0.564 | 0.164 | 0.224 | 0.424 |
denote significant at the 1 and 5% level. (2) City FE and Year FE denote the city fixed effects and year fixed effects.
Heterogeneity analysis.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| BCCP | 0.045 | 0.012 | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| (0.018) | (0.011) | (0.003) | (0.002) | |
| BCCP × Central | −0.025 | 0.028 | ||
| (0.022) | (0.014) | |||
| BCCP × Western | −0.034 | 0.040 | ||
| (0.024) | (0.015) | |||
| BCCP × Rank | 0.042 | 0.048 | ||
| (0.022) | (0.013) | |||
| ln | 0.161 | 0.097 | 0.151 | 0.090 |
| (0.029) | (0.017) | (0.028) | (0.017) | |
| ln | 0.512 | 0.457 | 0.516 | 0.442 |
| (0.059) | (0.036) | (0.060) | (0.036) | |
| ln | 0.007 | 0.004 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| (0.004) | (0.002) | (0.004) | (0.002) | |
|
| 0.057 | 0.014 | 0.053 | 0.007 |
| (0.019) | (0.012) | (0.019) | (0.012) | |
|
| −0.253 | 0.051 | −0.253 | 0.043 |
| (0.083) | (0.051) | (0.083) | (0.051) | |
| 0.107 | 0.063 | 0.006 | 0.041 | |
| (0.043) | (0.026) | (0.036) | (0.022) | |
| −0.134 | −0.085 | |||
| (0.064) | (0.039) | |||
| −0.114 | −0.019 | |||
| (0.063) | (0.038) | |||
| 0.057 | −0.075 | |||
| (0.054) | (0.033) | |||
| −0.135 | −0.124 | −0.145 | −0.126 | |
| (0.045) | (0.028) | (0.044) | (0.027) | |
| −0.548 | −0.378 | −0.509 | −0.302 | |
| (0.156) | (0.097) | (0.157) | (0.097) | |
| −0.017 | 0.005 | −0.017 | 0.005 | |
| (0.010) | (0.006) | (0.010) | (0.006) | |
|
| −0.059 | −0.048 | −0.051 | −0.037 |
| (0.041) | (0.025) | (0.040) | (0.025) | |
|
| −0.393 | 0.275 | −0.395 | 0.279 |
| (0.266) | (0.163) | (0.266) | (0.163) | |
| City FE | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Year FE | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Obs | 2,590 | 2,590 | 2,590 | 2,590 |
|
| 0.522 | 0.551 | 0.525 | 0.574 |
denote significant at the 1, 5, and 10% level. (2) City FE and Year FE denote the city fixed effects and year fixed effects. (3) For ordinary prefecture-level cities, the value of rank is equal to 1; for non-ordinary prefecture-level cities, rank takes the value of 0.
Figure 6Results of placebo test. The dependent variable in the left graph is medical workforce (ln) and the dependent variable in the right graph is medical infrastructure (ln). Treatment groups were randomly drawn 500 times in the control group by Monte Carlo simulation and DID regression was performed. Plot the obtained regression coefficients as a distribution graph. This figure reports the results of health care environment of non-pilot cities as a dependent variable, presenting a normal distribution with an average value of 0.
Re-estimation using PSM-DID.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| BCCP | 0.109 | 0.125 | 0.083 | 0.087 |
| (0.017) | (0.015) | (0.020) | (0.014) | |
| ln | 0.437 | 0.150 | 0.435 | 0.384 |
| (0.028) | (0.024) | (0.017) | (0.012) | |
| ln | 0.764 | 0.727 | 0.736 | 0.465 |
| (0.098) | (0.087) | (0.088) | (0.064) | |
| ln | −0.013 | 0.006 | −0.004 | 0.006 |
| (0.006) | (0.005) | (0.005) | (0.003) | |
|
| 0.133 | 0.015 | 0.192 | 0.120 |
| (0.022) | (0.019) | (0.020) | (0.014) | |
|
| 0.051 | 0.085 | −0.126 | 0.273 |
| (0.113) | (0.100) | (0.099) | (0.072) | |
| C | −0.285 | 3.741 | −0.249 | 2.526 |
| (0.600) | (0.533) | (0.505) | (0.364) | |
| City FE | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Year FE | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Obs | 866 | 866 | 1,898 | 1,898 |
| F-static | 123.548 | 61.706 | 239.944 | 345.291 |
| Adj- | 0.374 | 0.145 | 0.396 | 0.497 |
denote significant at the 1 and 5% level. (2) City FE and Year FE denote the city fixed effects and year fixed effects.