Evidence mapPaperPMID 41779117Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2026

Policy Levers for First-Contact Healthcare Provider Choice: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Shanghai's Hierarchical Medical System.

Yi Gong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Yi GongGraduate School of Policy Science, Ritsumeikan University, Osaka, Japan. alasker0807@gmail.com.ORCID 0009-0007-9685-4965

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChina's hierarchical medical system seeks to route first-contact care for mild, nonurgent conditions to primary healthcare (PHC), yet hospital-centrism persists. Evidence is needed on how financing and visible access/quality signals jointly shape initial provider choice, and which groups respond most. This study quantifies those trade-offs and simulates policy impacts in Shanghai. METHODOLOGY: A discrete choice experiment (12 tasks; two labeled provider alternatives plus opt-out) was administered to adult residents and long-term migrants in Shanghai (N = 441). Attributes included reimbursement rate, deductible, travel time, provider title (ref. General physician), hospital tier (ref. PHC), and online booking. A respondent-panel mixed logit with random coefficients for reimbursement, deductible, and travel time captured unobserved heterogeneity; effects were summarized as marginal rates of substitution (MRS) in reimbursement percentage points.

resultsHigher reimbursement pulled patients toward PHC. Beyond price, visible access and quality signals exerted strong influence on first-contact choice. Price responsiveness varied meaningfully across people, with those who better understand insurance reacting more strongly to reimbursement. Policy simulations raised PHC's first-contact share from 23.4% (UEBMI baseline) to 29.7% with a PHC-tilted reimbursement schedule, and to 33.3% when pairing the same schedule with assured booking and senior staffing at PHC.

conclusionsPrice gradients are necessary but insufficient; coupling PHC-tilted financing with visible access/quality signals delivers the largest shift of mild first-contact care away from tertiary hospitals.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorHealth PolicyPrimary Health CareAccess to Primary CareAdultChinaFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID41779117
PMCPMC13102856

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.