↓ Skip to main content

Inequality trends of health workforce in different stages of medical system reform (1985-2011) in China.

Overview of attention for article published in Human Resources for Health, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Inequality trends of health workforce in different stages of medical system reform (1985-2011) in China.
Published in
Human Resources for Health, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12960-015-0089-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kaiyuan Zhou, Xinyi Zhang, Yi Ding, Duolao Wang, Zhou Lu, Min Yu

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify whether policies in different stages of medical system reform had been effective in decreasing inequalities and increasing the density of health workers in rural areas in China between 1985 and 2011. With data from China Health Statistics Yearbooks from 2004 to 2012, we measured the Gini coefficient and the Theil L index across the urban and rural areas from 1985 to 2011 to investigate changes in inequalities in the distributions of health workers, doctors, and nurses by states, regions, and urban-rural stratum and account for the sources of inequalities. We found that the overall inequalities in the distribution of health workers decreased to the lowest in 2000, then increased gently until 2011. Nurses were the most unequally distributed between urban-rural districts among health workers. Most of the overall inequalities in the distribution of health workers across regions were due to inequalities within the rural-urban stratum. Different policies and interventions in different stages would result in important changes in inequality in the distribution of the health workforce. It was also influenced by other system reforms, like the urbanization, education, and employment reforms in China. The results are useful for the Chinese government to decide how to narrow the gap of the health workforce and meet its citizens' health needs to the maximum extent.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Unspecified 4 14%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Other 10 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 31%
Social Sciences 6 21%
Unspecified 6 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 6 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 March 2016.
All research outputs
#4,070,071
of 9,183,188 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#483
of 595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,983
of 309,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#14
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,183,188 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 54th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 309,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.