Table 7.
Patient rating on the level of price of AHTs, n (%)
| Very high | High | Average | Low | Very low | χ 2 | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||||||
| Male | 13(4.8 %) | 34(12.5 %) | 131(48.3 %) | 66(24.4 %) | 27(10.0 %) | 7.336 | 0.119 |
| Female | 16(3.8 %) | 44(10.4 %) | 213(50.5 %) | 82(19.4 %) | 67(15.9 %) | ||
| Age (year) | |||||||
| <20 | 6(5.4 %) | 9(8.1 %) | 56(50.5 %) | 21(18.9 %) | 19(17.1 %) | 12.528 | 0.404 |
| 20-39 | 9(3.5 %) | 32(12.3 %) | 138(53.1 %) | 46(17.7 %) | 35(13.5 %) | ||
| 40-59 | 7(3.8 %) | 22(11.8 %) | 94(50.5 %) | 44(23.7 %) | 19(10.2 %) | ||
| ≥60 | 7(5.1 %) | 15(11.0 %) | 56(41.2 %) | 37(27.2 %) | 21(15.4 %) | ||
| Level of education | |||||||
| ≤Junior high school | 19(4.0 %) | 48(10.2 %) | 225(47.9 %) | 106(22.6 %) | 72(15.3 %) | 14.941 | 0.245 |
| Senior high school | 2(1.6 %) | 14(11.5 %) | 66(54.1 %) | 26(21.3 %) | 14(11.5 %) | ||
| Associate degree | 5(7.0 %) | 11(15.5 %) | 38(53.5 %) | 12(16.9 %) | 5(7.0 %) | ||
| ≥Bachelor degree | 3(10.0 %) | 5(16.7 %) | 15(50.0 %) | 4(13.3 %) | 3(10.0 %) | ||
| Annual household income (yuan) | |||||||
| <10000 | 9(5.9 %) | 25(16.4 %) | 72(47.4 %) | 35(23.0 %) | 11(7.2 %) | 29.349 | 0.003 |
| 10000-29999 | 6(4.0 %) | 20(13.2 %) | 67(44.4 %) | 26(17.2 %) | 32(21.2 %) | ||
| 30000-49999 | 3(1.4 %) | 20(9.2 %) | 118(54.4 %) | 46(21.2 %) | 30(13.8 %) | ||
| ≥50000 | 11(6.4 %) | 13(7.5 %) | 87(50.3 %) | 41(23.7 %) | 21(12.1 %) | ||
| Area of services# | |||||||
| Public health | 2(5.0 %) | 3(7.5 %) | 8(20.0 %) | 5(12.5 %) | 22(55.0 %) | 192.54 | 0.000 |
| Maternal and child care | 6(2.8 %) | 35(16.4 %) | 139(65.3 %) | 32(15.0 %) | 1(0.5 %) | ||
| Traditional Chinese medicine | 11(5.3 %) | 10(4.8 %) | 97(46.9 %) | 70(33.8 %) | 19(9.2 %) | ||
| Family planning | 5(5.5 %) | 2(2.2 %) | 37(40.7 %) | 13(14.3 %) | 34(37.4 %) | ||
| Management of chronic conditions | 5(3.5 %) | 28(19.7 %) | 63(44.4 %) | 28(19.7 %) | 18(12.7 %) | ||
| Insurance coverage | |||||||
| No | 2(3.6 %) | 12(21.4 %) | 21(37.5 %) | 14(25.0 %) | 7(12.5 %) | 7.895 | 0.096 |
| Yes | 27(4.2 %) | 66(10.4 %) | 323(50.7 %) | 134(21.0 %) | 87(13.7 %) |
#Paired comparisons:
“Public health” vs “Maternal and child care” (x 2=41.659, P < 0.001)
“Public health” vs “Traditional Chinese medicine” (x 2=11.908, P = 0.003)
“Public health” vs “Management of chronic conditions” (x 2=22.907, P < 0.001)
“Maternal and child care” vs “Traditional Chinese medicine” (x 2=27.975, P < 0.001)
“Maternal and child care” vs “Family planning” (x 2=45.106, P < 0.001)
“Traditional Chinese medicine” vs “Family planning” (x 2=6.672, P = 0.036)
“Family planning” vs “Management of chronic conditions” (x 2=19.018, P < 0.001)