Cross-Sectional Study on the Management and Control of Hypertension Among Migrants in Primary Care: What Is the Impact of Segmented Health Insurance Schemes?

Abstract

BackgroundInformation is scarce regarding the impact of fragmented health insurance schemes on the management and control of hypertension among migrants in primary care. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between insurance status and management and control of hypertension among migrants in primary care and to examine whether social capital could facilitate migrants’ participation in local health insurance schemes.Methods and ResultsA site‐based, cross‐sectional, face‐to‐face patient survey was administered in Shenzhen, China. Hypertensive primary care users who were migrants were selected using a systematic sampling design. The participants covered by local health insurance schemes were more likely than those without coverage to be managed by primary care facilities (82.6% versus 62.0%; odds ratio=2.63, 95% CI 1.41‐4.89) and to take antihypertensive medications (87.9% versus 76.4%; odds ratio=2.38, 95% CI 1.34‐4.24), and they had higher scores in first contact use (3.49 versus 3.23; β=0.17, 95% CI 0.05‐0.29) and continuity of care (3.17 versus 3.02; β=0.11, 95% CI 0.01‐0.21). The participants covered by local insurance schemes had higher scores in perceived generalized trust than their counterparts (4.23 versus 3.95; β=0.16, 95% CI 0.09‐0.40). The hypertension control rate was also higher among the participants with local health insurance coverage (48.8% versus 42.2%; odds ratio=1.38, 95% CI 1.02‐2.12).ConclusionsIn conclusion, local health insurance schemes are associated with optimal control of hypertension for migrants compared with social health insurance schemes. Our study implies that one form of social capital, namely perceived general trust, contributes to migrant hypertensive patients’ participation in local health insurance schemes.