Enhancing the accessibility and equity of primary healthcare (PHC) is a crucial objective of China’s healthcare reform. However, spatial barriers remain a significant factor contributing to the inequitable access to PHC services among residents. This study aims to quantify the spatial accessibility (SA) and evaluate the equity of PHC resources in a pilot province for healthcare reform, and its municipalities, thereby providing insights that can be generalized to the broader context of China. The study used the navigation function provided by Gaode Map to estimate the time it takes for residents to visit PHC institutions. The two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method, weighted by a Gaussian function, was employed to measure the SA of PHC institutions, general practitioners (GPs), and beds across various residential areas. The Gini coefficient was utilized to assess disparities in SA among different regions. Additionally, Getis-Ord Gi* analysis was conducted to visualize these spatial disparities. The study analyzed 25,601 residential and 1,451 healthcare points in Zhejiang Province, revealing significant disparities in SA of PHC. Urban residents reached PHC institutions faster than rural ones (7.05 ± 4.7 min vs. 9.17 ± 7.78 min, P < 0.001). Within 30 min, 98.4% of residential points and 99.1% of the population accessed PHC institutions. Disparities in PHC resources were notable, with Lishui having the highest SA for institutions and GPs, and Shaoxing for beds. Equity assessment showed high inequity for institutions (Gini 0.553), moderate for beds (Gini 0.497), and reasonable for GPs (Gini 0.332)​. Getis-Ord Gi* analysis demonstrated that areas further from urban centers were more likely to exhibit clusters of hotspots or cold spots. The study highlights substantial disparities in SA of PHC and equity across Zhejiang, underscoring the need for strategic resource distribution. Future research should include diverse transportation modes and more precise demand point data to enhance understanding of accessibility dynamics.

This study aimed to explore the dignity and related factors among older adults in long-term care facilities. Cross-sectional data were obtained from a sample of 253 Chinese older adults dwelling in long-term care facilities. Dignity among older adults was measured using the Dignity Scale, and its potential correlates were explored using multiple linear regressions. Results showed that the total score of the Dignity Scale is 151.95 ± 11.75. From high to low, the different factors of dignity among older adults in long-term care facilities were as follows: caring factors (4.83 ± 0.33), social factors (4.73 ± 0.41), psychological factors (4.66 ± 0.71), value factors (4.56 ± 0.53), autonomous factors (4.50 ± 0.57), and physical factors (4.38 ± 0.55). A higher score of the Dignity Scale was associated with higher economic status, fewer chronic diseases, less medication, better daily living ability and long-time lived in cities. Older adults with low economic status, more chronic diseases, and poor daily living ability, taking more medications, or the previous residence in rural areas seem to be most at low-level dignity in long-term care facilities and thus require more attention than their peers.

Background: Clinical decision support tools (CDSs) have been demonstrated to enhance the accuracy of antibiotic prescribing among physicians. However, their effectiveness in reducing inappropriate antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections (RTI) is controversial.Methods: A literature search in 3 international databases (Medline, Web of science and Embase) was conducted before 31 May 2023. Relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled to evaluate the effectiveness of intervention. Summary effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model due to the expected heterogeneity (I² over 50%).Results: A total of 11 cluster randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 5 before-after studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving 900,804 patients met full inclusion criteria. Among these studies, 11 reported positive effects, 1 reported negative results, and 4 reported non-significant findings. Overall, the pooled effect size revealed that CDSs significantly reduced antibiotic use for RTIs (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.85 to 0.95, I² = 96.10%). Subgroup analysis indicated that the intervention duration may serve as a potential source of heterogeneity. Studies with interventions duration more than 2 years were found to have non-significant effects (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.04, I² = 0.00%). Egger’s test results indicated no evidence of potential publication bias (p = 0.287).Conclusion: This study suggests that CDSs effectively reduce inappropriate antibiotic use for RTIs among physicians. However, subgroup analysis revealed that interventions lasting more than 2 years did not yield significant effects. These findings highlight the importance of considering intervention duration when implementing CDSs.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023432584, Identifier: PROSPERO (CRD42023432584).