[Examination of Regional Differences in Performance of Health Systems by Prefecture Using Cluster Analysis].
Clicks: 351
ID: 55519
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
351 views
43 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #1 of 4 articles by views in nihon eiseigaku zasshi japanese journal of hygiene
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) pointed out the deterioration of the performance of health systems (performance) in Japan. To correct this, we evaluated the performances in different prefectures.By the OECD method, we set 27 indicators concerning "health status (HS)", " risk factors (RFs)", " access to care (AC)", " quality of care (QC)", and " health care resources (HRs)". Next, the relative value (RV, ±4 standard deviation) from the average value of each indicator in each prefecture was obtained. On the basis of this RV, the prefectures were divided into A, B, and C by cluster analysis. Then, the 27 indicators of the three groups were subjected to multiple comparison tests and the performances were evaluated.A included Hokkaido, Ishikawa, Kyoto, Shimane, Okayama, Hiroshima, Yamaguchi, Tokushima, Kagawa, Ehime, Kochi, Fukuoka, Saga, Nagasaki, Kumamoto, Oita, Miyazaki, Kagoshima, and Okinawa, B included Aomori, Iwate, Akita, Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Saitama, Tokyo, Osaka, and Wakayama, C included Miyagi, Yamagata, Gunma, Chiba, Kanagawa, Niigata, Toyama, Fukui, Yamanashi, Nagano, Gifu, Shizuoka, Aichi, Mie, Shiga, Hyogo, Nara, and Tottori. The multiple comparison test results showed that HS and RFs were not significantly different between A and C. In A, AC and QC were poor, but HRs were excessive, and the local allocation tax was high. RFs, AC, QC, HRs, and the local allocation taxes were not significantly different between B and C, but HS was poor in B.The performance of health systems was deteriorating in the 19 prefectures included in A, and correction is necessary in these prefectures.
| Reference Key |
nakajima2019examinationnihon
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Nakajima, Hisato;Yano, Koya; |
| Journal | nihon eiseigaku zasshi japanese journal of hygiene |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.1265/jjh.19009
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.