Next Article in Journal
Analyst Earnings Forecast Optimism during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from China
Next Article in Special Issue
Current Trends in Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Programmes in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review
Previous Article in Journal
Indicators Affecting the Urban Resilience with a Scenario Approach in Tehran Metropolis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Knowledge, Attitude and Practice towards the Use of Over-the-Counter Medicines: An Online Survey among Bruneian Adults amid the COVID-19 Pandemic
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Public Health System and Socio-Economic Development Coupling Based on Systematic Theory: Evidence from China

1
School of Economics, Liaoning University, No. 5 Puhe Road, Shenbei New District, Shenyang 110036, China
2
Asia-Australia School of Business, Liaoning University, No. 5 Puhe Road, Shenbei New District, Shenyang 110036, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(19), 12757; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912757
Submission received: 20 August 2022 / Revised: 30 September 2022 / Accepted: 4 October 2022 / Published: 7 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Knowledge Management in Healthcare)

Abstract

:
This paper focus on the quantitative measurement of public health systems and its mismatch with socio-economic development. Based on systematic theory, we divide the public health system into four sub-systems: resource inputs, planning in decision-making, operations, and service outputs. We also provide a method to analyse the ability to match between the public health system and social-economic development by using the grey correlation and coupling method. Then we introduce data from China as a case of empirical research. The main findings are as follows: (1) China’s public health system has progressed from 2012 to 2019, and the development of China’s public health system is typically “input-driven”. Second, the level of public health management in China lacks sustainability. (2) The main reason for this problem is the mismatch between the central and local governments in China in terms of public health management authority. (3) Third, the coupling between China’s public health system and socio-economics development has shown a decreasing trend, which indicates an increasingly significant mismatch problem between public health and economic growth, urbanization, and population aging. Our study will enrich the understanding of the relationship between the public health system and socio-economics development.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, environmental pollution, disease epidemics, and other emergencies pose great challenges to human health and sustainable development, and a public health system is an important tool in addressing these challenges [1,2,3,4]. Especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, public health systems worldwide are undergoing a major shock [5,6,7]. As a result, it has become a growing concern for researchers and policymakers how to build an effective public health system.
However, there is still a lack of clarity in the evaluation of the effectiveness of public health systems. One traditional approach is to select one or several specific indicators as a proxy variable for public health, such as daily cases, death rate, case fatality rate (CFR), intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and national measures taken for dissemination, etc. [8,9,10,11]. This approach is indeed an easy one to use but hardly reflects the overall status of the public health system. Some scholars suggest that facing the complex shock in the real world, evaluating the effectiveness of public health systems requires a more comprehensive approach [12,13,14]. To deal with the problem of comprehensiveness, a systematic theory has been introduced to the measurement of public health systems. The basic principles of Systematic Theory (ST) were described by von Bertalanffy (1969) [15], aiming to handle multiple data modules in computer science. Systems theory focuses on the interaction and connectedness of the factors and sub-systems in a system and is increasingly being applied to describe non-linear relationships in management science. Theoretical models applied on systematic theory can hint toward a holistic approach for healthcare-related issues and problems, including those in hospital management, pharmacology, and psychology healthcare [16,17]. In recent years, scholars have attempted to use systematic theory on public health issues [18,19,20], but this research is still descriptive. In particular, there is a lack of systematic quantitative research on public health systems at a regional or national level [21,22]. In order to fill this research gap, we introduce the systematic theory to construct an evaluation method for the level of public health development.
Public health systems are not isolated but are embedded in socio-economic development. The development of the public healthcare system is influenced by the level of economic development, community culture, policies, and laws [23,24]. In turn, the level of development of the public healthcare system has an impact on economic growth, urbanization, political elections, and other social activities [25]. As an example, the mismatch between public health care and socio-economic development is widespread in developing and even developed countries [26,27,28]. The inequality of public healthcare resources between regions [29,30,31], inefficiencies in public hospitals [32,33,34], and the dilemma of community hospitals [35,36], etc.
A major lesson that the COVID-19 pandemic has taught people is that public health systems are tied to social, political, economic, and moral factors [37,38]. In order to respond to the problems of human health caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the relationship between socio-economic development and public health systems needs to have a more in-depth study. There have been studies on the relationship between socio-economic development and public health systems from the micro-perspective of cases, communities, and cities [25,39,40], while studies based on a macro-perspective are still limited. Thus, we provide an empirical analysis of public healthcare systems and socio-economic development as a whole by using country-level date from China. China, as a developing country with significant public health problems [41,42], is an ideal sample for discussing the relationship between the public health system and socio-economic development.
Facing these gaps in the existing research, this paper attempts to explore a quantitative study of public health systems and their relationship to socio-economic development. Specifically, this paper addresses the following three questions: (1) How to provide a systematic measurement of public health care? (2) How to measure the adaptability of public health systems to socio-economics development? (3) For China, is there any mismatch between socio-economic development and the public health system? If the answer is yes, how can we measure this mismatch?
We will introduce quantitative studies based on systematic theory and coupling that will answer these questions more precisely. The novelty of this paper is reflected at two levels. For the theoretical aspect, this study will enrich the understanding of the relationship between the public health system and socio-economics development, and for applications, this paper measures the coupling between China’s public health system and socio-economic development, which can harmonize public health with socio-economic development and provide policy insights for policymakers.

2. Theory and Methodology

2.1. The Measurement of Public Health System Based on Systematic Theory

So far, there has been no single or dominant approach to evaluating a public health system, nor is there a consistent model [43,44]. Given that it is difficult for a single or a few variables to reflect the development of a public health care system in an integrated manner, we introduced a systematic theory to construct a framework for evaluating public health care systems. Systematic theory suggests that public health systems can be divided into a number of interrelated sub-systems, and this viewpoint has been widely applied to study the issue of health management. Studies have been conducted on public health issues under systems theory, and these are often based on qualitative research and micro-questionnaires. For instance, Mahamoud et al.’s (2013) research was based on a large-scale community health survey from Canada that provided over 2300 factors that may influence public health effectiveness [36]. Littlecott et al. (2019) are based on structured and semi-structured interviews with individuals to analyse the public health system from the perspective of individual perceptions and behaviours [45]. Recently, Haghi et al. (2022) evaluated the functioning of the public health system during the COVID-19 pandemic through a questionnaire on medical participation [46].
With the enrichment of public health practice, scholars began to focus on public health system issues from a macro perspective. However, these macro-level studies are often qualitative. From a macro perspective, we divide the process of running a public health system into four parts: first, raising of funding and other resources, then, public health planning and decision-making. In other words, how public health resources are allocated and used. Next, the operation of public healthcare facility. Finally, provding the healthcare services to the public. Based on these processes of public health systems, we construct a systematic measure method for public health systems, including the following four sub-systems (see Figure 1).
(1)
Resources input sub-system. Public health systems require a certain amount of resources to support them, mainly including human, financial, social, and technical recources. Generally speaking, a greater investment of resources means that the public health system can provide a richer range of health services to people. However, unlike private healthcare services, public health services often have a low price or are even free in some countries, so that excessive investment in public health resources may increase the financial pressure on the government.
(2)
Planning and decision sub-system. There is a key problem in the effective allocation and use the public health resources. According to the WHO report in 2007 (WHO, http://www.who.int/healthsystems/strategy/everybodys_business.pdf., accessed on 25 July 2022), public health systems should have seven main functions (service delivery, health workforce, information, medical products, vaccines and technologies, financing, leadership/governance), these functions can be summarised into three aspects: first, disease control and second, health care—this is the most basic function of the public health care system. The third is health education. With knowledge playing an increasingly important role in health management, health education has become a key factor in evaluating public health performance. The government should consider above three aspects in the process of making public health policies and programmes.
(3)
Operating sub-system. In reality, the level of cooperation between the multiple agencies determines whether the public health plans or policies can be implemented effectively. Firstly, the government plays the role of leader and manager in the public health care system. Secondly, public hospitals are health institutions that are funded by the government, including both large-scaled hospitals and small healthcare institutions such as community clinics and family doctors. Public hospitals are the micro direct providers of public health services. Third, other medical institutions, such as universities, public laboratories, and epidemiological institutions, are becoming increasingly active in the public health system because knowledge, technology and management become new types of factors affecting the efficiency of public health systems.
(4)
Service output sub-system. The ultimate aim of a public health system is to provide sustainable public healthcare for the public. Therefore, public health performance is an important element in the evaluation of public health systems. In addition to daily healthcare services, the capacity to deal with public health emergencies, medical care for vulnerable groups, health awareness development, and training of medical talents are also dimension of the evaluation of the output of public health services.
Figure 1. Public health systems based on systematic theory.
Figure 1. Public health systems based on systematic theory.
Sustainability 14 12757 g001
Based on the above theoretical analysis and with reference to Ahirwar et al. (2021) [47] and Khan (2022) [48], we introduce the information entropy method for the systematic measurement of the public health system. Details of the mathematics approach are as follows.
We collect a total of n evaluation indicators, each indicator being time series data for m years. Firstly, the raw data should be normalized using the “max–min” method. For positive indicators, Equation (1) is used for normalization and Equation (2) for negative indicators. In the equation, X i j denotes the value of the jth (j = 1,2,3,…,n) indicator in the ith (i = 1,2,3,…,m) year, min { X j } and max { X j } are the minimum and maximum values of the jth indicator in all years, respectively.
X i j = X i j min { X j } max { X j } min { X j }
X i j = max { X j } X i j max { X j } min { X j }
Secondly, we need to calculate the weight of j evaluation indicator in the i year’s scoring.
Y i j = X i j   i = 1 m X i j  
Third, we can calculate the information entropy ( e j ) and information redundancy ( d j ) of the jth evaluation factor as in Equations (4) and (5), respectively, where parament k = 1 / ln ( m ) .
e j = k i = 1 m ( Y i j × l n Y i j )
d j = 1 e j
According to entropy theory, if the information entropy redundancy is a larger proportion of the total redundancy, it represents a greater degree of changes in the system brought by variation of that factor. Therefore, we can use the proportion of information redundancy of the total redundancy as weights for evaluating ( W i ) the public health system (see as Equation (6)).
W i = d j / j = 1 n d j
Ultimately, we can obtain a weighted average of evaluation factors ( S i j ) as the systematic measurements of the public health system (see Equation (7)).
S i j = W i × X i j  

2.2. The Coupling of Public Health System and Socio-Economic Development

Based on the evaluation of the level of the public health system, the next question is how to quantitatively measure its adaptability to socio-economic development. In the light of existing research [23,24,25], economic development, urbanization, migration, and ageing are the population issues on the research frontier of public health. We select four aspects to reflect the socio-economics development from the macro perspective. First, we choose GDP as the variable that reflects economic growth. Second, we calculate the share of urban population in the total population as a proxy variable reflecting the urbanization rate. Third, we select the number of migrant people as a proxy of labour migration status. Fourth, ageing is one of the major social challenges in East Asia [49,50,51], and we also analyse the relationship between the public health system and ageing population. We chose the proportion of the population aged over 65 in the total population as a variable to reflect the ageing of the population.
Coupling can be used to measure the degree of association among the various parts of a complex system. As mentioned above, public health systems are embedded in a complex socio-economic environment, so we introduce the concept of coupling to measure the level of matchability between the public health system and socio-economic development. This paper uses the grey correlation method to measure the coupling between the public health system and socio-economic development. The specific calculation method of coupling is as follows.
First, calculate the grey correlation coefficient. Grey relational analysis is to determine whether the relation between the reference data column and several comparison data columns is close by determining the similarity of the geometric shapes of the reference data column and several comparison data columns. For two number columns x i = { x i ( 1 ) , x i ( 2 ) , , x i ( k ) } and x j = { x j ( 1 ) , x j ( 2 ) , , x j ( k ) } , the grey correlation coefficient is:
ε i j = min i min j | x i ( k ) x j ( k ) | + ρ max i max j | x i ( k ) x j ( k ) | | x i ( k ) x j ( k ) | + ρ max i max j | x i ( k ) x j ( k ) |
In Equation (8),   | x i ( k ) x j ( k ) | represents the absolute difference between the x i and the x j at the kth point, and ρ ϵ ( 0 , 1 ) is the resolution coefficient.
Then, the formula for calculating the degree of coupling as Equation (9).
C ( k ) = 1 m × n i = 1 m j = 1 n ε i j ( k )
According to the coupling degree of the two systems, we can measure the level of matchability between the public health system and socio-economic development. The coupling degree is divided into the following levels: when C = 0, the two systems are not coupled; when 0 < C ≦ 0.4, the system belongs to low-level coupling; when 0.4 < C ≦ 0.5, the system belongs to antagonistic coupling; when 0.5 < When C ≦ 0.8, the system belongs to running-in coupling; when 0.8 < C < 1, the system belongs to high-level coupling; when C = 1, the system is fully coupled.

3. Data

3.1. Data on China’s Public Health System

According to the theoretical framework in Section 2.1 and taking into account data availability and time continuity, we collected data from China Health Statistical Yearbook (2012–2020) (http://www.nhc.gov.cn/zwgk/tjnj1/ejlist.shtml, accessed on 10 June 2022) and the official website of the China’s Ministry of Health (NHCOC, http://www.nhc.gov.cn/, accessed on 1 July 2022). The specific indicators were selected as follows:
(1)
Resources input sub-system. First, the human resource mainly selects the number of health technicians per 1000 population, the number of professionals in professional public health institutions and the number of primary medical and health institutions per 1000 population, which are used to measure the health personnel engaged in medical and scientific research, public health institutions, and primary medical institutions respectively. Second, government health expenditure is mainly used for measuring the level of financial security of public health services. Third, technology mainly chooses the number of equipment over 10,000 yuan in medical and health institutions to measure the technical level of public health services. Fourth, social is mainly selected per thousand the number of beds in medical institutions is used to measure the capacity of medical supplies.
(2)
Planning and decision sub-system. This paper chose the number of infectious disease prevented, the number of health supervision and punishment cases in public places, and the number of public health education activities to measure the ability of public health planning and decision.
(3)
Operating sub-system. First, the government usually does not directly participate in public health services. However, they provide public health services indirectly through human, financial, and material investment in medical institutions and public health institutions. Therefore, we select the scale of public health insurance in China to reflect the level of government participation in public health operations. Second, medical institutions mainly choose the number of hospitals and primary medical and health institutions, which are used to measure the situation of conventional medical institutions and primary medical institutions, respectively. Third, public hospitals mainly select the number of public health institutions.
(4)
Service output sub-system. First, we select the qualification rate of regular hygiene monitoring in public places to measure daily healthcare services. Second, the effective prevention and control of public health emergencies is mainly based on the incidence of notifiable infectious diseases in Class A and B. Class A and B notifiable infectious diseases are high-risk infectious diseases, and the lower the incidence rate indicates a lower probability of an outbreak. The third is to measure the increase in public health awareness by the number of health education programmes and people trained.
For reasons of brevity, we display the weights of secondary-level indicators according to Equation (6) (see Table 1), and details of all the bottom variables are shown in Appendix A.

3.2. Data on Socio-Economics Development in China

According to Section 2.2, we select four proxy variables representing economic growth, urbanization, labour migration, and ageing population, respectively. These data are from China Statistical Yearbook (2012–2020, http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/, accessed on 10 June 2022). Table 2 displays these variables of socio-economics development and their rate of change rate between 2012 to 2019 in China.

4. Analysis of Measurement Results

4.1. Measurement of Public Health System in China

The results of the systematic measurement of China’s public health from 2011 to 2019 are shown in Table 3. According to the results, we have three findings about China’s public health system.
First, overall, China’s public health system has progressed from 2012 to 2019. The total score of the public health system increased from 1.0735 in 2011 to 1.8601 in 2019, with an average annual growth rate of 7.16%. However, the growth rate public health system has slowed down since 2015. After 2015, the total score grew at a slower than average rate. The trend in total scores is consistent with changes in public health expenditure in China. As shown in Figure 2, although Chinese government healthcare expenditure has increased year on year, there has been a significant decline in the growth rate of healthcare expenditure after 2015.
Second, by comparing the score of various sub-systems, we find that the development of China’s public health system is typically “input-driven”. The resource input sub-system scores the highest and is much higher than the other three sub-systems, which is consistent with the first point about government spending on healthcare. In contrast, the service output sub-system has the lowest average annual growth rate, indicating that public health care inputs in China are inefficient. The consequence of this is that people still have difficulty accessing better healthcare services while China’s government has spent a large amount of money on the public healthcare system.
Third, the operating sub-system and the planning and decision sub-system has shown a negative growth rate for some years, indicating that the level of public health management in China has a lack of sustainability. The main reason for this problem is the mismatch between the central and local governments in China in terms of public health management authority. In China, the central government formulates most public health policies, such as managing the public health insurance fund and formulating health care resource allocation plans. However, public health care is mainly funded by local governments rather than the central government. For example, in 2017, local governments spent 1434.1 billion CNY on public healthcare, while the central government spent only 10.76 billion CNY. This mismatch makes it difficult for the central government to adjust the actual situation of local regions when making public health planning and decisions.

4.2. Mismatch between Public Health System and Socio-Economic Development in China

Using the method in Section 2.2, we calculated the couplings of the total score of the public health system in China with variables on socio-economic development mentioned in Section 3.2, and the results are shown in Figure 3. In total, the coupling between China’s public health system and socio-economics development has shown a decreasing trend, which indicates an increasingly significant mismatch problem between public health and economic and social development. The mean coupling has decreased from 0.6963 in 2012 to 0.5614 in 2019. Except for the coupling of labour migration, other couplings decreased over the years.
First, the mismatch between economic growth and the public health system. From 2012 to 2019, the coupling between the public health system and economic growth declined from 0.7114 to 0.5025, and are currently in a phase of grinding coupling. As seen in Figure 4, the share of Chinese health expenditure on GDP in 2019 was only 5.3%, which is not only lower than the 8.8 of the average level in OECD countries but even lower than some emerging market like Brazil, the average of 45% in emerging market countries (date source: OECD Health Statistics 2022, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?ThemeTreeId=9, accessed on 20 September 2022).
Second, a mismatch between urbanization and the public health system. The coupling between the public health system and urbanization declined from 0.7054 to 0.5025 from 2012 to 2019. The reasons for the declining trend are mainly two hands. On the one hand, the increasing level of urbanization means that the resident population in urban areas is increasing, which inevitably puts pressure on the supply of public health services in China’s cities and towns. On the other hand, there is an urban–rural inequality in China’s public health system. For example, in 2018, the per capita cost of public hospitals in urban China was 132.2 CNY/per visit, compared to only 71.5 CNY/per visit in rural areas. Rural residents have lower incomes than urban residents, but received less public health care payments, which makes health inequalities worse.
Third, a mismatch between population aging and the public health system. The coupling between the public health system and the population declined from 0.7187 to 0.5025. The continued downward trend in the coupling is mainly due to the fact that the ageing population has a higher rate of illness and is more likely to be severely ill, and their healthcare costs are also higher. The Fourth Sample Survey Report on the Living Conditions of the Elderly in Urban and Rural China (Ministry of Civil Affairs of China, http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2015-01/25/content_2809782.htm, accessed on 25 June 2022) shows that 38.1% of the elderly need treatment for chronic diseases, 11.3% need rehabilitation and care services, 10.6% need psychological counselling. Thus, as the ageing of China’s population continues to increase and is on a rapid rise, its demand for public health services is rising significantly.
Fourth, labour migration is the only aspect of coupling that has risen, suggesting that China’s public health system has become more adaptable to the labour flow. The reason for this phenomenon is the cross-regional medical settlement reform that the Chinese government began implementing in 2014 (Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security of China, http://www.mohrss.gov.cn/SYrlzyhshbzb/shehuibaozhang/zcwj/yiliao/201412/t20141224_147142.html, accessed on 15 June 2022 ). Before the reform, only the local workforce was able to use their public health insurance but not across the prefecture-level city. After 2015, China started to provide health insurance services across prefecture-level regions, and from 2022, China is experimenting with a national health insurance service. This reform of the public health system promotes health protection for migrant workers.

5. Conclusions

Based on the systematic theory, this paper provides a quantitative study of public health systems and its coupling with socio-economic development. The main findings of this research are as follows: First, China’s public health system has progressed from 2012 to 2019, and the development of China’s public health system is typically “input-driven”. Second, the level of public health management in China lacks sustainability. The main reason for this problem is the mismatch between the central and local governments in China in terms of public health management authority. Third, the coupling between China’s public health system and socio-economics development has shown a decreasing trend, which indicates an increasingly significant mismatch problem between public health and economic growth, urbanization, and population aging.
The conclusions of this paper could provide some policy implications in order to enhance the matching with the public healthcare system and socio-economic development. On the one hand, from a systematic theory perspective, the development of the public health system is measured by multiple dimensions, and policymakers need to set public health policies from multiple perspectives, including healthcare investment, policy implementation, and operational performance. For China, in particular, the findings of this paper suggest that the public health system is “input-driven” but lacks performance, and this mode is not sustainable. On the other hand, the external environment, including various factors of socio-economic development, is important for the development of public health systems. Policymakers need to improve the coupling between the public health system and economic and social development, so that the public health system can contribute more to economic development and social welfare.
There are two main limitations of our study that can be enhanced in future studies. On the one hand, due to a lack of data, we are unable to compare the relevant indexes for China with other developing countries by using our method. But this article provides a way to measure the level of development of public health systems. With the abundance of data from other countries, we can make cross-country comparisons under the same evaluation standard in the future. On the other hand, the COVID-19 pandemic has shocked the public healthcare system. Due to the lack of data, we are not yet able to measure the recovery and development of the public healthcare system in the post-COVID-19 era perfectly. The development of the public healthcare system in the post-COVID-19 era will be a key concern in the future.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.Z. and S.W; Data curation, X.Z and C.W.; Formal analysis, J.Z, X.Z., C.W. and S.W.; Methodology, J.Z, X.Z. and C.W; Visualization, C.W. and S.W; Writing—original draft, J.Z, X.Z., C.W. and S.W.; Writing—review and editing, J.Z. and S.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Details of all the bottom variables.
Table A1. Details of all the bottom variables.
First-Level IndicatorBottom VariablesWeights
Resources input sub-systemX1: Number of health technicians per 1000 population0.0441
X2: Personnel in professional public health institutions per thousand population0.0512
X3: Number of staff in primary medical and health institutions0.0488
X4: Government health spending0.0506
X5: The number of medical and health institutions more than 10,000 yuan of equipment0.0484
X6: Number of professional public health institutions with equipment of more than 10,000 yuan0.0496
X7: Number of units of equipment above 10,000 yuan in primary health institutions0.0531
X8: Number of beds in medical institutions per 1000 people0.0443
X9: Number of hygienic beds in primary medical institutions0.0426
X10: Number of beds in professional public health institutions0.0417
Operating sub-systemX11: Number of hospitals0.0504
X12: Number of primary medical and health institutions0.0543
X13: Number of professional public health institutions0.0608
Planning and decision sub-systemX14: Number of Infectious Disease Prevention Supervision and Punishment Cases0.0626
X15: Number of visits to medical and health institutions0.0358
X16: The number of public places health supervision and punishment cases0.0492
X17: Number of public health education activities0.0320
Service output sub-systemX18: Class A and B notifiable infectious disease mortality0.0434
X19: Qualification rate of regular hygiene monitoring in public places0.0412
X20: Number of health education trainees0.0538
X21: Incidence of Class A and B Notifiable Infectious Diseases0.0421

References

  1. Chen, X.; de Vries, S.; Assmuth, T.; Dick, J.; Hermans, T.; Hertel, O.; Jensen, A.; Jones, L.; Kabisch, S.; Lanki, T.; et al. Research challenges for cultural ecosystem services and public health in (peri-)urban environments. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 2118–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ahmed, F. Vaccination during a pandemic-a public health challenge. Indian J. Community Health 2020, 32, 617–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jevtic, M.; Savic, S. One health in urban environment- public health challenge for the future. Eur. J. Public Health 2021, 31 (Suppl. S3), ckab164-566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Navarro, J.A.; Markel, H. Politics, pushback, and pandemics: Challenges to public health orders in the 1918 influenza pandemic. Am. J. Public Health 2021, 111, 416–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Hamilton, J.J.; Turner, K.; Lichtenstein, C.M. Responding to the pandemic: Challenges with public health surveillance systems and development of a COVID-19 national surveillance case definition to support case-based morbidity surveillance during the early response. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 2021, 27, S80–S86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Clarfield, A.M.; Dwolatzky, T. Age and ageing during the COVID-19 pandemic; challenges to public health and to the health of the public. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 655831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Nguyen, H.; Nguyen, H.; Dao, A.; Nguyen, T.; Nguyen, P.; Le, P.; Vu, K.; Tran, A.; Dao, P.; Nguyen, C.; et al. The COVID-19 pandemic in Australia: Public health responses, opportunities and challenges. Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 2022, 37, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Koivusalo, M.; Mackintosh, M. Global public health security: Inequality, vulnerability and public health system capabilities: Assessment: Global public health security. Dev. Change 2008, 39, 1163–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Defraites, R.F. The armed forces health surveillance center: Enhancing the military health systems public health capabilities. BMC Public Health 2011, 11, S1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Månsdotter, A.; Ekman, B.; Feldman, I.; Hagberg, L.; Hurtig, A.; Lindholm, L. We propose a novel measure for social welfare and public health: Capability-adjusted life-years, CALYs. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2017, 15, 437–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Ahn, D.; Shin, H.; Kim, M.; Lee, S.; Kim, H.; Myoung, J.; Kim, B.; Kim, S. Current status of epidemiology, diagnosis, therapeutics, and vaccines for novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 30, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mays, G.P.; Smith, S.A.; Ingram, R.C.; Racster, L.J.; Lamberth, C.D.; Lovely, E.S. Public health delivery systems. evidence, uncertainty, and emerging research needs. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2009, 36, 256–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Rutter, H.; Savona, N.; Glonti, K.; Bibby, J.; Cummins, S.; Finegood, D.T.; Greaves, F.; Harper, L.; Hawe, P.; Moore, L.; et al. The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet 2017, 390, 2602–2604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Nanda, M.; Aashima, S.R.; Aashima. COVID-19: A comprehensive review of epidemiology and public health system response in nordic region. Int. J. Health Serv. 2021, 51, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. von Bertalanffy, L. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications; George Braziller Incorporated: New York, NY, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lipsitz, L.A. Understanding health care as a complex system: The foundation for unintended consequences. JAMA-J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2012, 308, 243–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Durrani, H. Healthcare and healthcare systems: Inspiring progress and future prospects. Mhealth 2016, 2, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Handler, A.; Issel, M.; Turnock, B. A conceptual framework to measure performance of the public health system. Am. J. Public Health 2001, 91, 1235–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Savoia, E.; Agboola, F.; Biddinger, P.D. A conceptual framework to measure systems’ performance during emergency preparedness exercises. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 9712–9722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vincenten, J.; MacKay, J.M.; Schröder-Bäck, P.; Schloemer, T.; Brand, H. Factors influencing implementation of evidence-based interventions in public health systems—A model. Cent. Eur. J. Public Health 2019, 27, 198–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. McGill, E.; Er, V.; Penney, T.; Egan, M.; White, M.; Meier, P.; Whitehead, M.; Lock, K.; Anderson de Cuevas, R.; Smith, R.; et al. Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: A research methods review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2021, 272, 113697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mahamoud, A.; Roche, B.; Homer, J. Modelling the social determinants of health and simulating short-term and long-term intervention impacts for the city of Toronto, Canada. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 93, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Morton, A. Aversion to health inequalities in healthcare prioritisation: A multicriteria optimisation perspective. J. Health Econ. 2014, 36, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Öhman, A.; Burman, M.; Carbin, M.; Edin, K. ‘The public health turn on violence against women’: Analysing swedish healthcare law, public health and gender-equality policies. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Katrakazas, P.; Pastiadis, K.; Bibas, A.; Koutsouris, D. A general systems theory approach in public hearing health: Lessons learned from a systematic review of general systems theory in healthcare. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 53018–53033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Milani, F. COVID-19 outbreak, social response, and early economic effects: A global VAR analysis of cross-country interdependencies. J. Popul. Econ. 2021, 34, 223–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. McBride, O.; Murphy, J.; Shevlin, M.; Gibson, M.J.; Hartman, T.K.; Hyland, P.; Levita, L.; Mason, L.; Martinez, A.P.; McKay, R.; et al. Monitoring the psychological, social, and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the population: Context, design and conduct of the longitudinal COVID-19 psychological research consortium (C19PRC) study. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2021, 30, e1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Kitamura, N.; Abbas, K.; Nathwani, D. Public health and social measures to mitigate the health and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in turkey, egypt, ukraine, kazakhstan, and poland during 2020-2021: Situational analysis. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Rutta, E.; Liana, J.; Embrey, M.; Johnson, K.; Kimatta, S.; Valimba, R.; Lieber, R.; Shekalaghe, E.; Sillo, H. Accrediting retail drug shops to strengthen Tanzania’s public health system: An ADDO case study. J. Pharm. Policy Pract. 2015, 8, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Shapira, B.; Schaefer, E.; Poperno, A.; Hess, Z.; Rosca, P.; Berkovitz, R. The methanol content of illicit alcoholic beverages seized in a low socio-economic area of tel-aviv: Public health impact and policy implications. J. Public Health 2019, 27, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ruiz-Arrondo, I.; Oteo, J.A.; Lucientes, J.; Muniesa, A.; de Blas, I. Surveillance of a pest through a public health information system: The case of the blackfly (Simulium erythrocephalum) in Zaragoza (Spain) during 2009–2015. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Yeager, V.A.; Beitsch, L.M.; Hasbrouck, L. From the schools and programs of public health: A mismatch between the educational pipeline and public health workforce: Can it be reconciled? Public Health Rep. 2016, 131, 507–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Gordon, T.; Booysen, F.; Mbonigaba, J. Socio-economic inequalities in the multiple dimensions of access to healthcare: The case of South Africa. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Watts, R.D.; Bowles, D.C.; Fisher, C.; Li, I.W. What do public health graduates do and where do they go? an analysis of job destinations and mismatch in Australian public health graduates. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Moscelli, G.; Siciliani, L.; Gutacker, N.; Cookson, R. Socioeconomic inequality of access to healthcare: Does choice explain the gradient? J. Health Econ. 2018, 57, 290–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Booysen, F.; Gordon, T. Trends and socio-economic inequality in public perceptions of healthcare delivery in South Africa. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 2020, 32, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rodrıíguez-Álvarez, A.; Fernández-Blanco, V.; Lovell, C.A.K. Allocative inefficiency and its cost:: The case of Spanish public hospitals. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2004, 92, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Christopher, S.M.; Parfait, B.B.; Max, M.N. Determinants of the inefficiency of public hospitals in Cameroon. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2017, 7, 2998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Piubello Orsini, L.; Leardini, C.; Vernizzi, S.; Campedelli, B. Inefficiency of public hospitals: A multistage data envelopment analysis in an Italian region. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2021, 21, 1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Smith, T.; Philmon, C.; Johnson, G.; Ward, W.; Rivers, L.; Williamson, S.; Goodman, E. Antimicrobial stewardship in a community hospital: Attacking the more difficult problems. Hosp. Pharm. 2014, 49, 839–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Shikino, K.; Mito, T.; Ohira, Y.; Yokokawa, D.; Katsuyama, Y.; Ota, T.; Sato, E.; Hirose, Y.; Yamashita, S.; Suzuki, S.; et al. Frequency of difficult patient encounters in a Japanese university hospital and community hospitals: A cross-sectional study. Intern. Med. 2022; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Song, W.; Li, Y.; Hao, Z.; Li, H.; Wang, W. Public health in China: An environmental and socio-economic perspective. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 129, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, G.; Su, B. The spatial impacts of air pollution and socio-economic status on public health: Empirical evidence from China. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2022, 83, 101167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Egan, M.; McGill, E.; Penney, T.; Meier, P.S.; Savona, N.; de Vocht, F.; Popay, J.; Cummins, S.; Smith, R.; White, M.; et al. Complex systems for evaluation of public health interventions: A critical review. Lancet 2018, 392, S31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Littlecott, H.J.; Moore, G.F.; Gallagher, H.C.; Murphy, S. From complex interventions to complex systems: Using social network analysis to understand school engagement with health and wellbeing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Haghi, F.; Goli, S.; Rezaei, R.; Akhormi, F.; Eskandari, F.; Isfahani, Z.N. Study of complexity systems in public health for evaluating the correlation between mental health and age-related demographic characteristics: A general health study. J. Healthc. Eng. 2022, 2022, 2117031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ahirwar, M.K.; Shukla, P.K.; Singhai, R. CBO-IE: A data mining approach for healthcare IoT dataset using chaotic biogeography-based optimization and information entropy. Sci. Program. 2021, 2021, 8715668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Khan, S.; Saravanan, V.N.G.C.; Lakshmi, T.J.; Deb, N.; Othman, N.A. Privacy protection of healthcare data over social networks using machine learning algorithms. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2022, in press. [CrossRef]
  49. Xing, Y. Japanese economy: Facing the constraint of an ageing and declining population. East Asian Policy 2016, 8, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vierkötter, A.; Hüls, A.; Yamamoto, A.; Stolz, S.; Krämer, U.; Matsui, M.S.; Morita, A.; Wang, S.; Li, Z.; Jin, L.; et al. Extrinsic skin ageing in German, Chinese and Japanese women manifests differently in all three groups depending on ethnic background, age and anatomical site. J. Dermatol. Sci. 2016, 83, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jung, Y. Fiscal policy and redistribution in a small open economy with aging population. East Asain Econ. Rev. 2021, 25, 421–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 2. Scale and growth rate of government healthcare expenditure in China.
Figure 2. Scale and growth rate of government healthcare expenditure in China.
Sustainability 14 12757 g002
Figure 3. The couplings of the public health system with socio-economic development in China.
Figure 3. The couplings of the public health system with socio-economic development in China.
Sustainability 14 12757 g003
Figure 4. Share of healthcare expenditure on GDP in 2019.
Figure 4. Share of healthcare expenditure on GDP in 2019.
Sustainability 14 12757 g004
Table 1. The evaluation indicators system of the public health system in China, 2012–2019.
Table 1. The evaluation indicators system of the public health system in China, 2012–2019.
First-Level IndicatorSecondary-Level IndicatorsWeights
Resources input sub-systemHuman resources0.1441
Financial resources0.0506
Technical resources0.1511
Social resources0.1286
Operating sub-systemGovernment0.0412
Public hospitals0.0608
Other medical institutions0.1047
Planning and decision sub-systemPublic health policy0.0626
Medical care0.0358
Disease control0.0492
Health education0.0320
Service output sub-systemDaily healthcare services0.0434
Increased public health awareness0.0538
public health emergency management0.0421
Table 2. Variables of socio-economics development and their change rate from 2012 to 2019.
Table 2. Variables of socio-economics development and their change rate from 2012 to 2019.
YearEconomics Growth
(Unit: CNY)
Urbanization Rate
(Unit: %)
Labour Migration
(Unit: 100 Million People)
Population Aging
(Unit: %)
ScaleChange RateScaleChange RateScaleChange RateScaleChange Rate
201239,7717.153.12.452.362.619.43.30
201343,4977.154.492.622.453.819.73.19
201446,9126.855.752.312.533.2710.14.12
201549,9226.457.332.832.47−2.3710.53.96
201653,7836.258.842.632.45−0.8110.82.86
201759,5926.360.242.382.44−0.4111.45.56
201865,5346.261.52.092.41−1.2311.94.39
201970,3286.062.711.972.36−2.0712.65.88
Table 3. Results of the systematic measurement of China’s public health.
Table 3. Results of the systematic measurement of China’s public health.
201120122013201420152016201720182019
Resources input sub-system0.47430.52740.61510.66590.71080.75480.81890.87840.9452
Operating sub-system0.17260.17090.23090.24840.25170.24690.25010.26700.2810
Planning and decision sub-system0.20070.22440.20510.24350.28230.27220.28040.32560.3527
Service output sub-system0.22590.23720.26240.27510.28740.32420.29730.31410.2812
Total1.07351.15991.31351.43291.53221.59811.64671.78511.8601
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhou, J.; Wang, C.; Zhang, X.; Wang, S. Public Health System and Socio-Economic Development Coupling Based on Systematic Theory: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912757

AMA Style

Zhou J, Wang C, Zhang X, Wang S. Public Health System and Socio-Economic Development Coupling Based on Systematic Theory: Evidence from China. Sustainability. 2022; 14(19):12757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912757

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhou, Jian, Chuhan Wang, Xinyu Zhang, and Shuang Wang. 2022. "Public Health System and Socio-Economic Development Coupling Based on Systematic Theory: Evidence from China" Sustainability 14, no. 19: 12757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912757

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop