↓ Skip to main content

The equity of China’s emergency medical services from 2010–2014

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The equity of China’s emergency medical services from 2010–2014
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0507-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ke Yan, Yi Jiang, Jingfu Qiu, Xiaoni Zhong, Yang Wang, Jing Deng, Jingxi Lian, Tingting Wang, Cheng Cao

Abstract

With the depth development of health care system reform in China, emergency medical services (EMS) is confronted with challenges as well as opportunities. This study aimed to analyze the equity of China's EMS needs, utilization, and resources distribution, and put forward proposal to improve the equity. Three emergency needs indicators (mortality rate of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, harm, and digestive system disease), two utilization indicators (emergency outpatient visits and rate of utilization) and one resource allocation indicator (number of EMS facilities) were collected after the review of the China Statistical Yearbook and the National Disease Surveillance System. Next, EMS related indicators were compared among 31 provinces from the eastern, central, and western regions of the country. Concentration Index (CI) were used to measure the equity of EMS needs and utilization among the western, central, and eastern regions. The Gini coefficient of demographic and geographic distribution of facilities represented the equity of resource allocation. During 2010-2014, the CI of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease mortality changed from positive to negative, which indicates that the concentrated trend transferred from richer regions to the poorer area. Injury mortality (CI: range from - 0.1241to -0.1504) and digestive disease mortality (CI: range from - 0.1921 to - 0.2279) consistently concentrated in the poorer region, and the inequity among regions became more obviously year-by-year. The utilization of EMS (CI: range from 0.1074 to 0.0824) showed an improvement; however, the inequity reduced gradually. The EMS facilities distribution by population (Gini coefficient: range from 0.0922 to 0.1200) showed high equitability but the EMS facilities distribution by geography (Gini coefficient: range from 0.0922 to 0.1200) suggested a huge gap between regions because the Gini coefficients were greater than 0.5 in the past 5 years. There are some inequities of needs, utilization, and resource allocation in the China EMS. The government needs to stick to the principle of increasing investment in poorer regions, perfecting ambulance configuration and improving health workers' professional skills to improve the equity and quality of EMS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 21 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 9%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 20 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,423,393
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,543
of 1,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,495
of 421,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#27
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.