The participants enrolled in 2014 National Internal Migrant Population Dynamic Monitoring Survey were 200,937, of which, around 3.82% had the inpatient service need. According to the Table 1, the total number of the migrants who needed inpatient service diagnosed by doctors was 7,592, of which, 1,667 (18.75% of total population) did not use the inpatient services (unmet inpatient service need) and 5,925 (81.25% of total population) had used the inpatient services. Of the 7,592 participants, about two-thirds (n=5,461) were female. The mean age was 32 years old. Most of the migrants had middles school degree (45.65% of total population), were Han Chinese (92.92% of total population) and had been married (94.70% of total population). About 97.31% had at least one child; 82.46% were registered as having a rural ‘Hukou’ and 76.90% had established the health records in the local residence.
Table 1 Characteristics of the migrants who need to be hospitalized by doctor’s diagnosis, China (n=7,592)
Characteristics
|
Total N (%)
|
Inpatient services
|
Met need N (%)
|
Unmet need N (%)
|
p-value
|
Total
|
7592
|
5925 (81.25)
|
1667 (18.75)
|
|
Socioeconomic status
|
|
|
|
|
Educational attainment
|
|
|
|
<0.001
|
Primary school or below
|
1106 (12.48)
|
721 (10.66)
|
385 (20.37)
|
|
Middle school
|
3544 (45.65)
|
2725 (45.17)
|
819 (47.74)
|
|
High school
|
1499 (21.42)
|
1226 (22.12)
|
273 (18.37)
|
|
University or above
|
1443 (20.45)
|
1253 (22.05)
|
190 (13.52)
|
|
Economic status
|
|
|
|
<0.001
|
Quartile 1
|
1927 (18.26)
|
1363 (16.93)
|
564 (23.99)
|
|
Quartile 2
|
2227 (26.27)
|
1724 (25.70)
|
503 (28.74)
|
|
Quartile 3
|
1565 (22.21)
|
1286 (22.97)
|
279 (18.94)
|
|
Quartile 4
|
1873 (33.26)
|
1552 (34.40)
|
321 (28.34)
|
|
Control variables
|
|
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
|
<0.001
|
Female
|
5461 (78.82)
|
4670 (83.87)
|
791 (56.92)
|
|
Male
|
2131 (21.18)
|
1255 (16.13)
|
876 (43.08)
|
|
Age
|
32.31
|
31.25
|
36.90
|
<0.001
|
Marital status
|
|
|
|
<0.001
|
Married
|
7120 (94.70)
|
5649 (96.21)
|
1471 (88.19)
|
|
Single
|
472 (5.30)
|
276 (3.79)
|
196 (11.81)
|
|
Number of children
|
|
|
|
<0.001
|
0
|
195 (2.69)
|
126 (2.01)
|
69 (5.60)
|
|
1
|
4070 (50.72)
|
3340 (53.04)
|
730 (40.69)
|
|
≧2
|
3327 (46.59)
|
2459 (44.95)
|
868 (53.71)
|
|
Ethnic group
|
|
|
|
0.943
|
Han
|
6915 (92.92)
|
5396 (92.91)
|
1519 (92.99)
|
|
Ethnic minority
|
677 (7.08)
|
529 (7.09)
|
148 (7.01)
|
|
Health records
|
|
|
|
0.103
|
Yes
|
5648 (76.90)
|
4396 (76.25)
|
1252 (79.74)
|
|
No
|
1944 (23.10)
|
1529 (23.75)
|
415 (20.26)
|
|
Hukou
|
|
|
|
0.423
|
Urban
|
1301 (17.54)
|
1041 (17.84)
|
260 (16.22)
|
|
Rural
|
6291 (82.46)
|
4884 (82.16)
|
1407 (83.78)
|
|
Health insurance
|
|
|
|
0.318
|
No insurance
|
1066 (17.50)
|
844 (18.00)
|
222 (15.34)
|
|
NCMS
|
4447 (50.90)
|
3433 (50.04)
|
1014 (54.60)
|
|
URBMI
|
551 (6.41)
|
410 (6.51)
|
141 (5.98)
|
|
UEBMI
|
1528 (25.19)
|
1238 (25.45)
|
290 (24.08)
|
|
Movement area
|
|
|
|
0.077
|
Across province
|
3650 (66.87)
|
2867 (67.60)
|
783 (63.71)
|
|
Across city
|
2330 (23.23)
|
1838 (23.00)
|
492 (24.23)
|
|
Across county
|
1612 (9.90)
|
1220 (9.40)
|
392 (12.05)
|
|
Duration of migration (year),
|
4.30
|
3.98
|
5.66
|
<0.001
|
Plans for long-term residence (> 5 years)
|
|
0.195
|
Yes
|
5072 (63.02)
|
3940 (62.59)
|
1132 (64.85)
|
|
No
|
740 (9.60)
|
565 (9.31)
|
175 (10.84)
|
|
Not decided yet
|
1780 (27.39)
|
1420 (28.10)
|
360 (24.31)
|
|
Regions
|
|
|
|
<0.001
|
East
|
3286 (77.90)
|
2716 (79.23)
|
570 (72.12)
|
|
Central
|
1632 (7.05)
|
1219 (6.70)
|
413 (8.61)
|
|
West
|
2674 (15.05)
|
1990 (14.07)
|
684 (19.27)
|
|
Note: The percent in parentheses were weighted with sampling weights provided in the survey; NCMS: New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme; UEBMI: Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance; URBMI: Urban Resident Basic Medical Insurance. Quartile 1 was the poorest and Quartile 4 was the richest.
Regarding health insurance, 50.90% were covered by the NCMS, 6.41% and 25.19% were covered by the URBMI and UEBMI, respectively, while 17.50% had no social health insurance. The majority of the migrants was across province migration (66.87%) and has willingness for long-term residence (63.02%). In terms of geographic region, the proportion of migrants in eastern region was the highest (77.90%), followed by western (15.05%), while central regions had the lowest proportion (7.05%). In general, we found that there were statistically significant differences in socioeconomic status, gender, age, marital status, number of children, duration of migration, and regions by whether met inpatient services needs using chi-square tests.
Figure 2 plotted the concentration curves for probability of inpatient service utilization among migrants in the previous 12 month. A significant distribution of inpatient service utilization based on need concentrated among high-SES migrants was observed (CI: 0.036, P<0.001).
Table 2 showed the association between SES indicators and met inpatient healthcare services need among migrants. Model 1 presented the disparities in met inpatient services need in different SES without covariate adjustment. Compared with migrants who had primary school or below degree, those had middle school degree, high school degree, and university degree were more likely to meet the inpatient services need, and the OR values were 1.72 (95% CI 1.33, 2.22, p<0.001), 2.15 (95% CI 1.63, 2.85, p<0.001), and 2.76 (95% CI 2.11, 3.62, p<0.001), respectively. Regarding economic status, compared with the migrants from lowest economic group, the odds of inpatient service utilization when needed were significantly higher among those with higher economic group. The OR values for each income group from the Quartile 2 to the Quartile 4 was 1.41 (95% CI 1.14, 1.76, p=0.002), 1.62 (95% CI 1.34, 1.97, p<0.001), and 1.67 (95% CI 1.25, 2.22, p<0.001), respectively. In Model 2, we included the two SES indicators at the same time and adjusted for other confounding variables. Both the coefficients of education and income were attenuated compared with model 1. Specifically, compared with migrants who had primary school or below degree, those had high school degree and university degree were more likely to meet the inpatient services need, and the OR values were 1.48 (95% CI 1.07, 2.03, p=0.017) and 2.04 (95% CI 1.45, 2.88, p=0.001), respectively. For migrants who had middles school degree, the OR was greater than 1, but it is not statistically significant. Regarding economic status, after adjusting for other confounding variables, the OR values for Quartile 3 groups and Quartile 4 groups was 1.28 (95% CI 1.01, 1.62, p=0.044) and 1.37 (95% CI 1.02, 1.83, p=0.035), respectively.
Table 2 Association between socioeconomic status and receivers of inpatient services among migrants who need them, China
Characteristics
|
Model 1 (No covariates)
|
|
Model 2 (Covariates)
|
OR (SE)
|
95% CI
|
P
|
|
OR (SE)
|
95%CI
|
P
|
Socioeconomic status
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Educational attainment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Primary school or below
|
Ref.
|
|
|
|
Ref.
|
|
|
Middle school
|
1.72 (0.23)
|
1.33, 2.22
|
<0.001
|
|
1.21 (0.16)
|
0.93, 1.57
|
0.154
|
High school
|
2.15 (0.31)
|
1.63, 2.85
|
<0.001
|
|
1.48 (0.24)
|
1.07, 2.03
|
0.017
|
University or above
|
2.76 (0.38)
|
2.11, 3.62
|
<0.001
|
|
2.04 (0.36)
|
1.45, 2.88
|
0.001
|
Economic status
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quartile 1
|
Ref.
|
|
|
|
Ref.
|
|
|
Quartile 2
|
1.41 (0.16)
|
1.14, 1.76
|
0.002
|
|
1.15 (0.14)
|
0.90, 1.47
|
0.250
|
Quartile 3
|
1.62 (0.16)
|
1.34, 1.97
|
<0.001
|
|
1.28 (0.16)
|
1.01, 1.62
|
0.044
|
Quartile 4
|
1.67 (0.24)
|
1.25, 2.22
|
<0.001
|
|
1.37 (0.20)
|
1.02, 1.83
|
0.035
|
Note: Standard error in parentheses all clustered at strata; Sample weights applied; CI indicated confidence interval; Model 2 were adjusted for gender, age, marital status, number of children, ethnic group, health record, Hukou type, health insurance, movement area, duration of migration and willingness for long-term residence of more than 5 years and region.
Table 4 showed the composition of the self-reported reasons for unmet inpatient service need, of which the most important was feeling unnecessary (41.0%), followed by the economic difficulties (29.5%).
Table 4 Self-reported reasons for unmet inpatient service need among the migrants
Reasons
|
%
|
Feeling unnecessary
|
41.0
|
Economic difficulty
|
29.5
|
Have no time
|
16.9
|
No one to take care of
|
7.1
|
No effective treatment
|
2.3
|
Others
|
2.1
|
Lack of hospital beds
|
1.0
|
Note: The percent were weighted with sampling weights provided in the survey