Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Family support and transport cost: understanding health service among older people from the perspective of social-ecological model

Archives of Public Health volume 80, Article number: 173 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This study is to investigate the interaction of family support, transport cost (ex-post), and disabilities on health service seeking behavior among older people from the perspective of social ecological model.

Method

We conduct a series of regressions including the Poisson model and Multiple logit model. The Heckman two-stage procedure is also conducted to check the robustness.

Results

Given that health care resources are generally concentrated in densely populated urban areas, access to services of higher-class health care facilities is found associated with higher transport cost (ex-post). Family support could also promote the access to higher-class health care facilities. Although disability may impede such access, this effect may be mitigated by paying higher transport cost (ex-post).

Conclusions

Alleviating transport deprivation and promoting family support are critical for access to better healthcare services among older people with disabilities.

Peer Review reports

Background

Availability, affordability, and acceptability are three pillars of equity in health care access. Health care service is critical for older people, as they are more prone to chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease, physical illness, disability and cognitive impairment, and mental health problems [1, 2]. Differences in travel conditions (e.g., distance, time, and expenditure) are important for their decision-making of health care utilization [3, 4]. The role of transport conditions between residence and health facilities in access to health services is more outstanding in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and for people with disabilities [5, 6]. The health inequity remains prevalent among older people with obstacles in accessing health care services, exacerbating their risk of underdiagnosis [7]. The barriers to health care facilities reduce their utilization of preventive health services and treatments [8, 9]. In practice, the political marginalization, discrimination, and unequal access to health care services faced by people with disabilities lead to their worse health status than their counterparts [10, 11].

Besides, social/family support is another of the most proximal determinants of access to health services for older people with disabilities [12], especially in the LMICs context where people often face resource constraint in decision making. Though the effect of social support on health behaviors and decisions about health care seeking is recognized [13], the research on the role of family support, as a more proximal source of care for older people, is insufficient [14]. Decisions about health care services seeking are made against the context of social networks that are influenced by family members and peer groups in ways such as financial support [15]. Older people who receive sound support and contact with their children may have a stronger sense of social role, promoting their willingness to seek active medical treatment.

According to the social ecological model, the behavioral decision is often subjected to different levels of the environment (i.e., individual, interpersonal, organizational, community and policy) [16], and the decision-making of health service seeking is conditioned on the environment where people live in. By extending the social ecological model into the medical treatment issue of older people with disabilities, this study could expand the development of social ecological model and enrich the understanding of this topic. In this study, disabilities, family support and transport will be integrated into the decision making of health care service seeking among this vulnerable group based on this theoretical framework.

Literature and hypotheses

Family support and access to health care service in the perspective of social ecological model

The social ecological model provides a theoretical framework for explaining older people’s decision-making about access to health care services by dividing external determinants into micro and macro levels [17]. Specifically, the individual level (e.g., personal characteristics like gender, education, health status, etc.), the interpersonal level (e.g., social interaction of family members and friends), the organizational level (e.g., activities carried out by organizations like advices and professional counselling), the community level (e.g., social, and cultural aspects of living environments), and policy level (e.g., governmental regulations and initiatives) constitute determinants from proximal to distal [16]. In this study, from the perspective of social ecological modeling, disability serves as an individual characteristic, while family support and transportation correspond to interpersonal and community level.

In practice, family support is considered as positive attitudes, behaviors, and family acceptance [18]. Interpersonal interactions with families can be an important channel to connect oneself to social networks that is important for one’s health and behavioral decisions [19], especially for older adults retiring from the workforce. Family care creates a sense of belonging, self-esteem, and positive self-perception, family encouragement and assistance will enable people to take care of their health and enhance their willingness to use remote services [20]. Likewise, emotional and practical support from family members can reduce the occurrence of psychological distress and thus lower the depression levels [21, 22].

Moreover, the support from families can be broadly divided into financial and non-financial support. Studies have shown that the support from children is positively correlated with the tendency of older patients in rural areas to seek health services [23]. Older people in retirement will face reduced income, thus financial conditions become a major barrier to access to better health care with lower affordability. In their daily life, older adults could benefit from basic care provided by family members, which helps them maintain good health [24]. Besides, family support provides emotional connections that help them maintain greater efficacy in seeking health services [25]. Sympathy and care of family members can provide emotional support for older people with reduced social activities, leading to higher levels of mental health. Therefore, we propose

  • Hypothesis 1. Greater family support is associated with the visit to higher-class facilities among older people

Transport and access to health service

Limited availability of health care facilities within reach implies that high out-of-pocket expenditures, long distances to health care facilities and high cost of travel time are the most important impediments to the access to health care [26]. Travel conditions are important for patients with chronic diseases that require multiple follow-up visits [27]. Difficulties or obstacles in reaching health care facility may reduce people’s use of medication [28]. For example, people with diabetes suffer from inadequate insulin use [29] and poor blood glucose control [30] due to long driving distances from home to health care providers. Patients with mental health problems who are unable to drive believe that transportation can significantly affect their accessibility to health facilities and limit their medical compliance [31], leading to the reduction in their drug supplementation [32].

In prior studies, transport cost can be manifested as longer travel distance or longer travel time. In many developing countries, there is an association between distance and access to health services [33], reflecting lower frequency of utilization of health services [34]. In general, advanced health care facilities are located in densely populated urban areas, thus older people, especially older rural residents, face greater transportation barriers to access to health care facilities compared with their counterparts [35, 36]. Longer travel distances could lead to the longer time to reach health care facilities and thus the longer time in the health services seeking [3]. As such, it is often observed that the ex-post longer transport distance is associated with the visit to advanced medical facilities, which would not otherwise be considered worthwhile.

Although travel time and distance are thought to be important determinants of people’s access to health care, the mechanisms may not be intuitive. Lack of personal resources can be a critical deterrence of reaching health service facilities and makes necessary care less affordable especially in LMICs where non-motorized rickshaw and vans are prevalent [37]. Given similar distance, different modes of transportation can also lead to differences in travel time, resulting in the disadvantage in utilization of health services [38, 39]. Trips to medical services may be time-consuming because older people cannot drive on their own and public transport options are often limited [40]. Thus, we propose

  • Hypothesis 2. The ex-post transport cost is positively associated with the visit to higher-class facilities among older people

Disability and access to health service

Older people with disabilities have a greater need for health care services (e.g., protective services) and face greater barriers to access to health care than their counterparts [41]. Older people are often faced with different types of disabilities (e.g., movement restriction, cognitive impairment, hearing, and vision impairment) [42]. But only a small part of the disabled have their health care needs met [43]. The research on African Americans showed that inaccessible or inconvenient transportation was an important impediment to health service seeking for people with mobility disabilities [44]. Due to the imperfect transportation services, people with movement restriction are often unable to take public transportation to reach health care facilities located in crowded urban areas, but turn to nearby traditional doctors for treatment [45]. For those with hearing impairments, the difficulty in communicating is the biggest challenge they face when seeking health services [46]. The barriers to access to health-care facilities can be categorized as the financial, structural, and procedural for older people with disabilities, which include the cost of travel to health care facilities, the long distance to health care facilities, lack of companions, language and communication problems, and staff attitudes, etc. [47]. Some of these challenges are shared by older people with and without disabilities. People with disabilities may face greater disadvantages in terms of information and geographical accessibility when accessing medical facilities [48]. Disability may exacerbate difficulties in accessing higher-level health care facilities located in crowded urban areas. Thus, we propose

  • Hypothesis 3. Disability is negatively associated with the class of health care service facilities visited among older people

  • Hypothesis 4. The negative relationship between disability and the class of health care service facilities visited among older people can be alleviated by paying higher transport cost

Material and method

Description of data

This study applied the data from China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS-2015 wave, and the harmonized version) which is initiated for the purpose of tracking health status and their health care service utilization among older population. This survey is among the very limited data source that tracks both the family support and utilization of transport in the process of health care service seeking among older people with different disabilities. The survey involves a nationally representative sample that covers about 150 counties (450 communities/villages nationwide) in China, among which 47.4% are of urban areas. This study is exempted from reviewing by institutional review board for the application of publicly available data and authors have no contact with the respondents.

Variables

Dependent variables

Class of health care facilities visited is measured using two methods for robustness. Firstly, it is coded =7 general hospital; =6 specialized hospital; =5 Chinese medicine hospital; =4 community healthcare center; =3 township hospital; =2 health care service station; =1 village clinic/private clinic. Secondly, it is coded according to the three-tier health system. For outpatient service, coded =3 general hospital; =2 specialized hospital, Chinese medicine hospital; =1 community healthcare center, township hospital, health care service station, village clinic/private clinic.

Independent variables

Disabilities is measured by the number of types of following problems he/she suffers (physical disabilities, brain damage/mental retardation, vision problem, hearing problem, speech impediment).

Transport cost in health care seeking (ex-post, having already paid) is measured by the distance from home to the health care facility most recently visited (km, one-way).

Family support is measured using two methods for robustness (i.e., face-to-face and online connection). The former is measured by inquiring “How often would you/your spouse see your child who is not living with you?” The latter is measured by inquiring “How often would you/your spouse contact your child who is not living with you on phone/by message/on WeChat/by mail/by email?” (higher score implies greater family support, from 1 to 10). This variable is coded according to the mean value of his/her rating about all children if he/she has more than one child.

Covariates

Demographics including age, gender, the beneficiary status of health insurance, financial status, chronic condition, and self-rated health. More details about description of variables are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1 Description of variables
Full size table

Approach

The Poisson regressions adjusted with robust standard errors on individual level are conducted to examine the influences of transport cost of health service seeking, family support and disability on the class of health care facilities. There are two reasons for using this method. First, the Poisson regression is suitable for the situation where the dependent variable is valued with non-negative integers. Second, since individuals can show non-randomized variations in income, insurance, etc., the violation of independent and identical distribution can bring bias in the regression analysis. The application of robust standard errors for adjustment in the regression analysis is to overcome the weakness of heterogeneity on individual level that could result in estimation bias.

In the robustness check section where the dependent variable is coded according to the three-tier system, the multiple logit model is applied, as the dependent variable has three values. The Stata 16.0 (Stata Corp. LLC., College Station, TX, USA) is applied in the analysis. The regression is shown as below.

$$Class\ of\ health\ care\ facilities\ visited=\beta 0+\beta 1\ Transport\ cost\ \left( ex- post\right)+\beta 2\ Disabilities+\beta 3\ Family\ support+\beta 4\ Transport\ cost\ \left( ex- post\right)\times Disabilities+\beta 5\ Age+\beta 6\ Gender+\beta 7\ Education+\beta 8\ Marriage+\beta 9\ Health\ insurance+\beta 10\ Financial\ status+\beta 11\ Chronic\ conditions+\beta 12\ Self- rated\ health+\varepsilon$$

Empirical results

Table 1 displays that 63.71% of respondents are aged > 55 years. 59.68% are female. 55.22% take ≤5 km on travel between residence place and health care facilities. 44.23% report that they have no chronic condition.

Empirical results (Table 2, Model 1) show that, when measuring family support with the face-to-face type, transport distance between residence place and health care facilities (coefficient = 0.139, 95% CI [0.124, 0.153], p < 0.01) and family support (coefficient = 0.048, 95% CI [0.023, 0.073], p < 0.01) are both positively associated with the class of health care facilities visited. In contrast, disability status is negatively associated with the class of health care facilities visited (coefficient = − 0.113, 95% CI [− 0.183, − 0.043], p < 0.01).

Table 2 Results of baseline model (Poisson regression)
Full size table

The above results remain robust when measuring family support with the online connection type instead (Table 2, Model 2). In this case, transport distance between residence place and health care facilities (coefficient = 0.139, 95% CI [0.124, 0.153], p < 0.01) and family support (coefficient = 0.071, 95% CI [0.035, 0.106], p < 0.01) both remain positively associated with the class of health care facilities visited. In contrast, disability status remains negatively associated with the class of health care facilities visited (coefficient = − 0.114, 95% CI [− 0.184, − 0.045], p < 0.01).

Table 3 presents the results of robustness check, where the class of health care facilities visited is categorized according to the three-tier health system (see Table 1 for details). Compared with the baseline group (lowest tier), the transport cost in health service seeking (ex-post) is associated with the visit to higher tier health care facilities (1.022, p < 0.01 for the second tier) and (0.966, p < 0.01 for the third tier). Family support (face-to-face) is also associated with the visit to higher tier health care facilities (0.332, p < 0.01 for the second tier) and (0.274, p < 0.01 for the third tier). Disability is negatively associated with the tier health care facilities visited (− 0.882, p < 0.05 for the second tier) and (− 0.835, p < 0.01 for the third tier). Further, the transport cost in health service seeking (ex-post) might alleviate the negative relationship between disability and the tier health care facilities visited (ex-post) (interaction term = 0.317, p < 0.05 for the second tier) and (interaction term = 0.329, p < 0.05 for the third tier). These results remain robust when the family support is measured by the online connection instead.

Table 3 Supplementary robustness check: Multiple logit model, (three-tier health system)
Full size table

We also combine the Heckman two-stage procedure and multiple logit model for robustness check, which addresses the concern about potential self-selection bias. Considering the difficulty in instrumental activity of daily living (IADL), the beneficiary status of health insurance, chronic conditions and wealthier financial status may affect the health care service need, it is expected that such pre-determined health care need can influence the class of health care facilities visited. Therefore, in the first-stage, we conduct a regression and obtain the inverse Mills ratio (IMR), and in the second-stage, we adjust the potential self-selection estimation bias by including the IMR into the multiple logit model.

$$Health\ care\ service\ need=\beta 0+\beta 1\ Instrumental\ activity\ of\ daily\ living\ \left[ IADL\right]+\beta 2\ Age+\beta 3\ Gender+\beta 4\ Health\ insurance+\beta 5\ Chronic\ conditions+\beta 6\ Financial\ status+\varepsilon\ \left[1 st\ stage\ regression\right]$$

Where, the health care service need is measured by “physical examinations” (0-1 indicator, =1 if taken one of the items including physical examination, routine blood test, routine urine test, liver function test, kidney function test, lipids profile test, blood glucose test, surgical, internal medicine, ophthalmology and otorhinolaryngology, electrocardiogram, ultrasonic, chest fluoroscopy, andrology and gynecology; =0 otherwise).

Results of Table 4 (Model 1) show that the transport cost in health service seeking (ex-post) is associated with the visit to higher tier health care facilities (1.031, p < 0.01 for the second tier) and (1.019, p < 0.01 for the third tier). Family support (face-to-face) is also associated with the visit to higher tier health care facilities (0.339, p < 0.01 for the second tier) and (0.184, p < 0.01 for the third tier). Disability remains negatively associated with the tier health care facilities visited (− 1.207, p < 0.01 for the second tier) and (− 0.976, p < 0.01 for the third tier). Further, the transport cost in health service seeking (ex-post) might alleviate the negative relationship between disability and the tier health care facilities visited (ex-post) (interaction term = 0.408, p < 0.05 for the second tier) and (interaction term = 0.409, p < 0.01 for the third tier). These results are still robust when we measure the family support by the online connection (Table 4, Model 2).

Table 4 Supplementary robustness check: Clarifying potential self-selection bias of transport and health care need (combining Heckman two-stage procedure and multiple logit model)
Full size table

Discussion

General discussion

Based on social ecological modeling, this study investigates the health services seeking behavior of older people with and without disabilities by integrating different determinants. Family support (e.g., care and emotional comfort) could increase the importance that older people attach to their own health [49]. Regular contact and care could alleviate the inability and perceived difficulty of older people with disabilities in seeking health care services.

The study found that transport cost can be an important factor of access to advanced health care facilities, such that people who seek advanced health care services would have to pay higher transport cost, which is consistent with previous research findings [50]. In general, high-level health care institutions can provide more comprehensive services. However, high-level health care institutions are mainly located in the core region with dense population, due to the functional integrity of health care resources. In contrast, lower-level health care facilities (e.g., community health service centers, township health centers and health service stations) are distributed in communities, and it often does not take much time to reach the basic health care service. In addition to the external environment, disability as a personal characteristic is also found to be negatively associated with access to higher-class health care facilities. Older people with limitations and deficiencies in activities impair their ability to access to health care services [51], which is consistent with previous research finding that people with disabilities in rural areas face more barriers to access to health care than counterparts, especially in the context of LMICs [52].

Policy implication

This study has some important policy implications, and shed light on the influence mechanism that affects health care service of older people with disabilities. First, it is necessary for policymakers to expand the coverage of the transport network to reduce the cost of travel distance. Increase in the frequency and routes of public transportation can optimize the travel distance to health care facilities for older people living in rural or suburban areas. Second, the establishment of special transportation lines for older people with disabilities can also be considered to help them to reach medical facilities and promote the health equity of accessing medical resources. Third, family members should continue to play a role in influencing older people’s health behaviors. Family members should also enhance their care for older family members by strengthening the connection within the family. In the context of LMICs where resource constraint can be severe, the fulfillment of economic support and psychological attention from family can be both important.

Conclusion

This study shows that alleviating transport deprivation and facilitating family support are critical for access to better health services among older people especially those with disabilities in the context of LMICs.

Availability of data and materials

The data are publicly available upon reasonable request and via online application to the CHARLS research team.

Abbreviations

CHARLS:

China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study

HHCF:

Higher-class health care facilities

IADL:

Instrumental activity of daily living

LMICs:

Low- and middle-income countries

References

  1. Sanderson WC, Scherbov S. The characteristics approach to the measurement of population aging. Popul Dev Rev. 2013;4:673–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Marengoni A, Angleman S, Melis R, et al. Aging with multimorbidity: a systematic review of the literature. Ageing Res Rev. 2011;10(4):430–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dassah E, Aldersey H, McColl MA, Davison C. Factors affecting access to primary health care services for persons with disabilities in rural areas: a “best-fit” framework synthesis. Global Health Res Policy. 2018;3:36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McIntyre D, Thiede M, Birch S. Access as a policy-relevant concept in low- and middle-income countries. Health Econ Policy L. 2009;4(2):179–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carthaigh NN, De Gryse B, Esmati AS, et al. Patients struggle to access effective health care due to ongoing violence, distance, costs and health service performance in Afghanistan. Int Health. 2015;7(3):169–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gething PW, Johnson FA, Frempong-Ainguah F, et al. Geographical access to care at birth in Ghana: a barrier to safe motherhood. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(991):991.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Nguyen TMT, Nguyen XT, Nguyen TKC, Lindholm L. The impact of economic growth on health care utilization: a longitudinal study in rural Vietnam. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12(19):19.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hiscock RDOG, Pearce JODO, Blakely TDOP, et al. Is neighborhood access to health care provision associated with individual- level utilization and satisfaction? Health Serv Res. 2008;43(6):2183–200.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Cvitkovich Y, Wister A. The importance of transportation and prioritization of environmental needs to sustain well-being among older adults. Environ Behav. 2001;33(6):809–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Casey R. Disability and unmet health care needs in Canada: a longitudinal analysis. Disabil Health J. 2015;8(2):173–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mulumba M, Nantaba J, Brolan CE, et al. Perceptions and experiences of access to public healthcare by people with disabilities and older people in Uganda. Int J Equity Health. 2014;13:76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Berkman LF. Social integration, social networks, and health. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences; 2001. p. 14327–32.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Heaney CA, Israel BA. Social networks and social support. Health Educ Behav. 2008;3(2):189–210.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Stone R, Cafferata GL, Sangl J. Caregivers of the frail elderly: a national profile. The Gerontologist. 1987;27(5):616–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Geertsen R, Klauber MR, Rindflesh M, Kane RL, Gray R. A re-examination of Suchman's views on social factors in health care utilization. J Health Social Beh. 1975;2:226–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;4:351–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bronfenbrenner U, Morris PA. The bioecological model of human development. Handbook of Child Psychology, Theoretical models of human development, vol. 1; 2006. p. 793–828.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lantos H, Manlove J, Wildsmith E, et al. Parent-teen communication about sexual and reproductive health: cohort differences by race/ethnicity and nativity. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2019;16(5):833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pender NJ, Murdaugh CL, Parsons MA. Health promotion in nursing practice; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mizrachi Y, Shahraban S, Nachmani M, Hornik A. Obstacles to using online health services among adults age 50 and up and the role of family support in overcoming them. Isr J Health Policy. 2020;1:42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Koelmel E, Hughes AJ, Alschuler KN, Ehde DM. Resilience mediates the longitudinal relationships between social support and mental health outcomes in multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2017;6:1139–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lyons A. Social support and the mental health of older gay men: findings from a National Community-Based Survey. Res Aging. 2016;2:234–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nguyen AT, Giang TL. Factors associated with regional disparity in utilization of healthcare services among the Vietnamese older people. J Popul Soc Stud. 2020:15–31.

  24. Ouml CL, Ffler, Kaduszkiewicz H, et al. Coping with multimorbidity in old age – a qualitative study. Bmc. Fam Pract. 2012;13:45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang L, Yang L, Di X, Dai X. Family support, multidimensional health, and living satisfaction among the elderly: a case from Shaanxi Province, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(22):8434.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Coe RM, Wolinsky FD, Miller DK, Prendergast JM. Elderly persons without family support networks and use of health services. Res Aging. 1985;7(4):617–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Syed ST, Gerber BS, Sharp LK. Traveling towards disease: transportation barriers to health care access. J Commun Health. 2013;38(5):976–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Levine DA, Kiefe CI, Howard G, et al. Reduced medication access: a marker for vulnerability in US stroke survivors. Stroke. 2007;38:1557–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Littenberg B, Strauss K, MacLean CD, Troy AR. The use of insulin declines as patients live farther from their source of care: results of a survey of adults with type 2 diabetes. Bmc. Public Health. 2006;6(198):198.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Strauss K, MacLean C, Troy A, Littenberg B. Driving distance as a barrier to glycemic control in diabetes. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(4):378–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Welty TE, Willis SL, Welty EA. Effect of limited transportation on medication adherence in patients with epilepsy. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2010;50(6):698–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tierney WM, Harris LE, Gaskins DL, et al. Restricting Medicaid payments for transportation: effects on inner-city patients’ health care. Am J Med Sci. 2000;319(5):326–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pearson CA, Stevens MP, Sanogo K, Bearman GML. Access and barriers to healthcare vary among three neighboring communities in northern Honduras. Int J Fam Med. 2012;2012:298472.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Buor D. Distance as a predominant factor in the utilisation of health services in the Kumasi metropolis, Ghana. Geo J. 2002;56(2):145–57.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Probst JC, Laditka SB, Wang J, Johnson AO. Effects of residence and race on burden of travel for care: cross sectional analysis of the 2001 US National Household Travel Survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(40):40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Skinner AC, Slifkin RT. Rural/urban differences in barriers to and burden of care for children with special health care needs. J Rural Health. 2007;23(2):150–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Keya KT, Rob U, Rahman M, Bajracharya A, Bellows B. Distance, transportation cost, and mode of transport in the utilization of facility-based maternity services: evidence from rural Bangladesh. Int Q Community Health Educ. 2014;35(1):37–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rimmer JH, Rowland JL. Health promotion for people with disabilities: implications for empowering the person and promoting disability-friendly environments. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2008;2(5):409–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Arcury TA, Preisser JS, Gesler WM, Powers JM. Access to transportation and health care utilization in a rural region. J Rural Health. 2005;21(1):31–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Douthit N, Kiv S, Dwolatzky T, Biswas S. Exposing some important barriers to health care access in the rural USA. Public Health. 2015;129(6):611–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Senghor DB, Diop O, Sombié I. Analysis of the impact of healthcare support initiatives for physically disabled people on their access to care in the city of Saint-Louis, Senegal. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Eide AH, Ingstad B. Disability and poverty-reflections on research experiences in Africa and beyond. Afr J Disabil. 2013;2(1):e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Eide AH, Loeb ME. Living conditions among people with disabilities in Malawi. A national representative and comparative household survey among individuals with disabilities in Malawi. Chisinau: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ho P, Kroll T, Kehn M, Anderson P, Pearson KM. Health and housing among low-income adults with physical disabilities. J Health Care Poor U. 2007;18(4):902–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ahmad M. Health care access and barriers for physically disabled in rural Punjab, Pakistan. Int J Sociol Soc Policy. 2013;33(3-4):246–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Scheier DB. Barriers to health care for people with hearing loss: a review of the literature. J N Y State Nurses Assoc. 2009;40(1):4–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Munthali AC, Swartz L, Mannan H, et al. “This one will delay us”: barriers to accessing health care services among persons with disabilities in Malawi. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(6):683–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Neille J, Penn C. Beyond physical access: a qualitative analysis into the barriers to policy implementation and service provision experienced by persons with disabilities living in a rural context. Rural Remote Health. 2015;3:149–62.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Cadet T, Burke SL, Naseh M, et al. Examining the family support role of older Hispanics, African Americans, and non-Hispanic whites and their breast Cancer screening behaviors. Soc Work Public Health. 2021;36(1):38–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Nemet GF, Bailey AJ. Distance and health care utilization among the rural elderly. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50(9):1197–208.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Taylor DHJD, Hoenig HDOM. Access to health Care Services for the Disabled Elderly. Health Serv Res. 2006;41(3Part1):743–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Vergunst R, Swartz L, Hem K, et al. Access to health care for persons with disabilities in rural South Africa. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):741.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank the CHARLS research team, Open Research Data Platform, Institute for Social Science Survey, National School of Development, Peking University who conduct the national random stratified sampling and publicize their research data. We appreciate the permit of research use of data. We also thank participants of seminars for providing valuable advices to improve our manuscript.

Funding

The study received support from the National Social Science Fund of China (20CTY017).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-sen University, West Xingang Rd. 135, Guangzhou, China

    Bocong Yuan & Tong Zhang

  2. Institute of Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Jinfeng Rd. 18, Zhuhai, 519087, China

    Jiannan Li

Authors
  1. Bocong Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiannan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Yuan B is responsible for conception, study design, formal analysis; Zhang T is responsible for the data curation, writing – first draft; Li J is responsible for writing – first draft, writing – revision and review. All authors gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiannan Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethical approval and informed consent are not required, as this study uses publicly available data source and authors have no contact to human related materials. More specifically, the data applied in this study are publicly available and unrestricted re-use is permitted via an open license. Besides, the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) research team obtained ethics approval (license numbers: IRB00001052–11015, IRB00001052–14030, and IRB00001052–17053) from the institutional review board of the Peking University National School of Development. All respondents provided written informed consent. If the respondent was illiterate, he/she would press the fingerprint after the interviewer dictated the content of the informed consent.

Consent for publication

Consent for publication is not required since there are no personal identifying materials included in this manuscript.

Competing interests

Authors of this study has no competing interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yuan, B., Zhang, T. & Li, J. Family support and transport cost: understanding health service among older people from the perspective of social-ecological model. Arch Public Health 80, 173 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-022-00923-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-022-00923-1

Keywords

Archives of Public Health

ISSN: 2049-3258