ArticleBMC public health2026
The impact of the pilot reform of home and community-based elderly care services on the health of the elderly.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Home and Community-based Elderly Care Services (HCBS) pilot aims to improve access to preventive, rehabilitative, and long-term care for a rapidly ageing population. This study estimates the effect of HCBS on elderly mental and functional health and examines mechanisms and distributional heterogeneity
methodsThis paper linked the roll-out of HCBS pilots (2016-2020) to five waves (2011-2020) of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). The analytic sample included 25,287 respondents aged ≥60 years. This paper implemented a multi-period staggered difference-in-differences (DID) with individual and year fixed effects to estimate impacts on depressive symptoms (10-item CESD, 0-30; higher = worse) and physical status (ADL, 0-11; higher = worse). Mechanisms were tested using community elderly care intensity proxies, including home physician visits, family-doctor contracting, and routine preventive care.
resultsThe HCBS significantly improved both mental and functional health. CESD scores declined by 0.396 (≈4.53% of the mean) and ADL scores by 0.224 (≈20.1% of the mean). Mechanism analysis showed increased use of routine preventive care (2.52 percentage points) and higher participation in home visits and family-doctor contracting, consistent with enhanced accessibility of elderly care services. Robustness checks found no differential pre-trends; effects were driven primarily by treated vs. never-treated comparisons (Goodman-Bacon weight ≈0.96), and remained significant under plausible deviations from parallel trends. Larger CESD improvements among those without chronic conditions and with higher education, and larger ADL gains among those with chronic conditions, lower education, and rural residents.
conclusionsThe HCBS significantly improved the mental and functional health of the elderly through enhancing the accessibility of community elderly care services. Prioritizing service continuity and tailoring supports to functionally vulnerable groups could further amplify health gains and reduce disparities. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.