The comparison of healthcare utilization inequity between URRBMI and NCMS in rural China

Table 4 Binary logistic regression on inpatient utilization

Inpatient visit
Variables	URRBMI (dy/dx)	95% CI	NCMS (dy/dx)	95% CI
Per capita Household Income (Ref: the lowest)
The second	0.024	[−0.016, 0.064]	−0.009	[− 0.035, 0.017]
The third	0.008	[−0.027, 0.044]	0.003	[−0.024, 0.030]
The fourth	0.006	[−0.030, 0.042]	−0.002	[− 0.029, 0.024]
The highest	−0.005	[− 0.042, 0.031]	−0.020	[− 0.048, 0.007]
Gender (Ref: female)	0.017	[−0.007, 0.041]	0.000	[−0.019, 0.018]
Age (Ref: 45–60)	0.029^**	[0.006, 0.053]	0.017^*	[−0.002, 0.036]
Self-assessed health (Ref: poor)
Excellent	/	/	−0.070^***	[−0.112, − 0.029]
Very good	− 0.106^***	[− 0.130, − 0.082]	−0.094^***	[− 0.111, − 0.078]
Good	− 0.078^***	[− 0.101, − 0.055]	−0.076^***	[− 0.094, − 0.057]
Fair	−0.093^***	[− 0.119, − 0.066]	− 0.101^***	[− 0.121, − 0.081]
Chronic (Ref: not sick)	0.058^***	[0.029, 0.087]	0.063^***	[0.042, 0.084]
Marital Status (Ref: single/divorced/widowed)	−0.073^***	[− 0.118, − 0.027]	−0.024^*	[− 0.052, 0.004]
Education (Ref: illiterate)
Primary	−0.001	[−0.030, 0.028]	− 0.011	[− 0.032, 0.011]
Junior/senior high school	− 0.003	[− 0.040, 0.034]	−0.010	[− 0.037, 0.017]
College or higher	−0.025	[− 0.059, 0.009]	−0.004	[− 0.033, 0.025]
Region (Ref: east)
Central	−0.004	[− 0.032, 0.024]	0.007	[−0.017, 0.030]
West	0.038^**	[0.006, 0.069]	0.023^*	[−0.001, 0.046]
Community (Ref: township and village)	0.004	[−0.047, 0.054]	−0.022	[− 0.058, 0.014]
Sample size	3555		5409

The dy/dx in brackets indicates the marginal effect; * p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01; The CI is confidence interval. The population that report their health status as excellent in the URRBMI group has not received inpatient care in the past year, so the excellent row has no data

ISSN: 1475-9276