Evidence mapPaperPMID 40134540Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2025

Impact of China's primary healthcare reforms on utilisation, payments and self-reported health: a quasi-experimental analysis of a middle-aged and older cohort 2011-2018.

Chang Cai, Christopher Millett, Shangzhi Xiong, Maoyi Tian, Jin Xu, Thomas Hone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. [Current Status and Effect Pathways of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Medical Care and Prevention Integration Among Medical Professionals].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Chang CaiPublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0883-5021
Christopher MillettPublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Shangzhi XiongThe George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Maoyi TianThe George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jin XuChina Center for Health Development Studies, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Thomas HonePublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Comprehensive health reforms aimed at strengthening primary healthcare (PHC) are infrequently adopted and often poorly evaluated in low-income and middle-income countries. China launched a system-wide PHC reform with a staggered roll-out between 2014 and 2018 with multiple components: (1) gatekeeping via tiered reimbursement, (2) a family physician scheme and (3) a two-way referral system between PHC facilities and hospitals. This study examines the reform impacts on health service utilisation, out-of-pocket expenditures, health outcomes and health inequalities. Methods: The staggered roll-out of the reforms in 125 cities across China was identified using web-scraping. Using longitudinal data (2011-2018) from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (a cohort aged ≥45), this study adopted a difference-in-differences method to assess the reform's impacts on: (1) visits to PHC facilities, (2) hospitalisation, (3) out-of-pocket expenditures (OOPEs) and (4) self-reported health. Subgroup analyses were conducted by rural/urban populations and wealth quartiles. Results: The reform had small and short-lived impacts-a 7.8% increase in the probability of visiting PHC facilities (95% CI 0.3 to 15.2), a 10.2% increase in reporting good health (95% CI 0.6 to 19.8) and an 873.9 Chinese Yuan (US$129.1) increase in average annual OOPEs (95% CI 57.9 to 1689.9) in the first year of reform implementation. There was no impact on hospitalisation. Increases in PHC utilisation were only found in rural and lower-income populations. Conclusions: China's PHC reforms had some modest, temporary impacts on increasing primary care utilisation and self-reported health. However, further interventions are needed to transition away from the hospital-centric health system and to increase financial protection and health equity in China.

Indexed as

Community HealthHealth Services AccessibilityPrimary PreventionPublic HealthSociodemographic Factors

Identifiers

PMID40134540
PMCPMC11934424

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.