Table 4

The attitude of primary care medical staffs towards public health emergencies associated problems
Items Urban medical staffs Rural medical staffs Total χ2 P value
Awareness of risk management
 Strong(%) 23.9 23.6 23.8 1.657 0.437
 Normal(%) 66.5 65.4 66.1 0.435 0.510
 Weak(%) 9.6 10.9 10.1 1.513 0.219
Propaganda of health emergencies
 Poor(%) 4.1 3.4 4.0 1.048 0.306
 Not enough(%) 69.5 73.3 71.1 5.770 0.016
 Enough (%) 26.1 23.3 24.9 3.627 0.057
Response capacity of health emergencies
 Strong(%) 17.2 16.5 16.9 0.392 0.822
 Normal(%) 71.8 71.9 71.9 0.007 0.931
 Weak(%) 11.0 11.5 11.2 0.213 0.644
The weakest part of response capacity
 Response to important infectious diseases(%) 28.4 29.2 28.7 0.271 0.603
 Response to diseases of unknown cause(%) 46.2 47.4 46.7 0.463 0.496
 Response to major food poisoning(%) 6.1 7.8 6.8 3.942 0.047
 0.021Response to occupational poisoning(%) 15.6 12.8 14.4 5.309 0.021
 Others(%) 3.8 2.8 3.4 2.728 0.099
Main objective factors leading to the poor response capacity (multiple choices)
 a shortage of staff(%) 83.9 78.6 83.0 6.799 0.147
 a lack of equipment(%) 80.9 80.3 80.6 8.228 0.084
 aging equipment(%) 77.7 77.5 77.6 2.318 0.678
 Primary hospital should be involved in warning and monitoring (%) 84.9 88.8 86.6 34.359 0.000
 should assist epidemiological investigations(%) 90.5 88.5 89.7 11.228 0.024
 should provide emergency training(%) 87.1 83.0 85.3 13.131 0.011

Zhiheng et al.

Zhiheng et al. BMC Health Services Research 2012 12:338   doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-338

Open Data