Araştırma Makalesi

Sağlık Düzeyinin Belirleyicilerine Yönelik Mekânsal Bir Analiz: Türkiye İBBS-3 Örneği

Cilt: 25 Sayı: 34 31 Temmuz 2017
PDF İndir
EN TR

A Spatial Analysis for the Determinants of Health Status: The Case of Turkey NUTS-3

Öz

Turkey’s health outcomes are far behind the average of OECD countries and there are significant differences between its regions as well, for this reason it is important to identify the determinants of the health status. In this study, considering the externalities in the health care, the possible determinants of health status have been analysed by using Spatial Panel Data method for 2008-2014 and at the level of 81 provinces. According to the Fixed Effects Spatial Lag Panel model estimations, there are positive spillover between provinces on health status. Also the findings reveal that the level of income and proportion of the population covered social security scheme are most important determinants of health status, and also education level, urbanization rate and ease of access to healthcare facilities are among the findings that improve health. On the other hand there are no statistical evidences that the investment incentives for health and technology level of provinces have a positive effect on health status. All these results indicate that reducing of development disparities between regions, expansion of the population covered under social security scheme and facilitating access to health services are important policies for the point of eliminating the differences in health status. The effectiveness of investment incentives for health care should also be closely monitored in Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

  1. Andersen, R. & Newman, J. (2005), “Societal and Individual Determinants of Medical Care Utilization in the United States”, The Milbank Quarterly, 83(4),1-28.
  2. Anselin, L. (1998), Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models Kluwer, Boston Londan, Academic Publishers
  3. Arendt, J.N. (2005), “Does Education Cause Better Health? A Panel Data Analysis Using School Reforms for Identification”, Economics of Education Review (24), 149-160.
  4. Axelrad, D,.Bellinger, D.C.,Ryan, LM. &Woodruff T.J (2007), “Dose–ResponseRelationship of Prenatal Mercury Exposureand IQ: An Integrative Analysis of Epidemiologic Data”, Environmental Health Perspectives 15(4), 609-615.
  5. Berger, M.C &Messer, J. (2002), “Public Financing of Health Expenditures, Insurance, and Health Outcomes”, Applied Economics, 34(17), 2105-2113,
  6. Bartlett, SE. & Trasande, L. (2013), “Economic Impacts of Environmentally Attributable Childhood Health Outcomes in The European Union”, European Journal of PublicHealth, 24(1), 21–26.
  7. Bond, C.A.,Raehl, C.L., Pitterle, M.E. & Franke, T. (1999), “Health Care Professional Staffing, Hospital Characteristics and Hospital Mortality Rates”, Pharmacotherapy, 19(2), 130-138. Buntin, M.B. ,Burke, M.F., Hoaglin, M.C. & Blumenthal, D. (2011), “The Benefits of Health Information Technology: A Review of The Recent Literature Shows Predominantly Positive Results”, Health Affairs30(3), 464-471 Cheng, L.,Liu, H., Zhang, Y., Shen, K. & Zeng, Y. (2015), “ The Impact of Health Insurance On Health Outcomes And Spendıng of The Elderly: Evıdence From Chına’s New Cooperative Medical Scheme”, Health Economics, 24(6), 672-691
  8. Chiang, T.L. (1999), “Economic Transitionand Changing Relation Between Income Inequality and Mortality in Taiwan: Regression Analysis”, British MedicalJournal, 319 (7218) ,1162–5.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

-

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Gökçe Manavgat
EGE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, İKTİSAT BÖLÜMÜ
Türkiye

Necmettin Çelik
EGE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, İKTİSAT BÖLÜMÜ

Yayımlanma Tarihi

31 Temmuz 2017

Gönderilme Tarihi

13 Nisan 2017

Kabul Tarihi

18 Ağustos 2017

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2017 Cilt: 25 Sayı: 34

Kaynak Göster

APA
Manavgat, G., & Çelik, N. (2017). A Spatial Analysis for the Determinants of Health Status: The Case of Turkey NUTS-3. Sosyoekonomi, 25(34), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.305978
AMA
1.Manavgat G, Çelik N. A Spatial Analysis for the Determinants of Health Status: The Case of Turkey NUTS-3. Sosyoekonomi. 2017;25(34):53-67. doi:10.17233/sosyoekonomi.305978
Chicago
Manavgat, Gökçe, ve Necmettin Çelik. 2017. “A Spatial Analysis for the Determinants of Health Status: The Case of Turkey NUTS-3”. Sosyoekonomi 25 (34): 53-67. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.305978.
EndNote
Manavgat G, Çelik N (01 Ekim 2017) A Spatial Analysis for the Determinants of Health Status: The Case of Turkey NUTS-3. Sosyoekonomi 25 34 53–67.
IEEE
[1]G. Manavgat ve N. Çelik, “A Spatial Analysis for the Determinants of Health Status: The Case of Turkey NUTS-3”, Sosyoekonomi, c. 25, sy 34, ss. 53–67, Eki. 2017, doi: 10.17233/sosyoekonomi.305978.
ISNAD
Manavgat, Gökçe - Çelik, Necmettin. “A Spatial Analysis for the Determinants of Health Status: The Case of Turkey NUTS-3”. Sosyoekonomi 25/34 (01 Ekim 2017): 53-67. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.305978.
JAMA
1.Manavgat G, Çelik N. A Spatial Analysis for the Determinants of Health Status: The Case of Turkey NUTS-3. Sosyoekonomi. 2017;25:53–67.
MLA
Manavgat, Gökçe, ve Necmettin Çelik. “A Spatial Analysis for the Determinants of Health Status: The Case of Turkey NUTS-3”. Sosyoekonomi, c. 25, sy 34, Ekim 2017, ss. 53-67, doi:10.17233/sosyoekonomi.305978.
Vancouver
1.Gökçe Manavgat, Necmettin Çelik. A Spatial Analysis for the Determinants of Health Status: The Case of Turkey NUTS-3. Sosyoekonomi. 01 Ekim 2017;25(34):53-67. doi:10.17233/sosyoekonomi.305978

Cited By