ArticleBMC health services research2026
Equity in the allocation of professional public health human resources and its improvement path in China.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProfessional public health human resources (PPHHRs) are fundamental to determining a nation’s capacity to respond to public health emergencies. To address the critical challenge of inequitable PPHHRs allocation in China, this study systematically evaluated the current state of allocation equity, investigated its underlying determinants, and identified potential pathways for improvement. The findings provide evidence-based recommendations for achieving optimal PPHHRs distribution across China.
methodsThe equity of human resource allocation in professional public health in China was measured by calculating the health resource density index (HRDI) of health technicians in professional public health institutions. We integrated Necessary condition analysis (NCA) and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to identify critical factors and effective pathways influencing the equity of PPHHRs allocation in China.
resultsThe allocation of PPHHRs in China showed significant disparities across regions and provinces. The western region and its provinces demonstrated lower equity in PPHHRs allocation compared to the eastern and central regions. No single necessary condition was found to affect the equity of PPHHRs allocation. Based on configurational analysis, four condition configurations were identified that lead to high equity in PPHHRs allocation.
conclusionThe analysis demonstrates that high equity in PPHHR allocation is achievable through multiple distinct configurations, with no single condition being formally necessary. The findings reveal that high equity in the allocation of PPHHRs in China is achieved through multiple distinct configurations of conditions, with no single factor being necessary. For western and other equity-disadvantaged provinces constrained by low population density and limited fiscal capacity, the key strategy is to establish a centrally-led, locally-collaborative systematic intervention system that provides external support to compensate for inherent disadvantages. For regions that already possess certain foundational conditions, efforts should focus on enhancing the synergistic effects across social, governmental, residential, and economic dimensions to promote sustainable high-quality equity.
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.