Rural–urban disparities in the utilization of mental health inpatient services in China: the role of health insurance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reducing rural-urban disparities in health and health care has been a key policy goal for the Chinese government. With mental health becoming an increasingly significant public health issue in China, empirical evidence of disparities in the use of mental health services can guide steps to reduce them. We conducted this study to inform China's on-going health-care reform through examining how health insurance might reduce rural-urban disparities in the utilization of mental health inpatient services in China. This retrospective study used 10 years (2005-2014) of hospital electronic health records from the Shandong Center for Mental Health and the DaiZhuang Psychiatric Hospital, two major psychiatric hospitals in Shandong Province. Health insurance was measured using types of health insurance and the actual reimbursement ratio (RR). Utilization of mental health inpatient services was measured by hospitalization cost, length of stay (LOS), and frequency of hospitalization. We examined rural-urban disparities in the use of mental health services, as well as the role of health insurance in reducing such disparities. Hospitalization costs, LOS, and frequency of hospitalization were all found to be lower among rural than among urban inpatients. Having health insurance and benefiting from a relatively high RR were found to be significantly associated with a greater utilization of inpatient services, among both urban and rural residents. In addition, an increase in the RR was found to be significantly associated with an increase in the use of mental health services among rural patients. Consistent with the existing literature, our study suggests that increasing insurance schemes' reimbursement levels could lead to substantial increases in the use of mental health inpatient services among rural patients, and a reduction in rural-urban disparities in service utilization. In order to promote mental health care and reduce rural-urban disparities in its utilization in China, improving rural health insurance coverage (e.g., reducing the coinsurance rate) would be a powerful policy instrument.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".