Mixed-methods study reveals significant rural-urban disparities in cardiovascular drug availability across primary healthcare institutions, highlighting critical supply chain gaps.
To evaluate medication and diagnostic equipment availability for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases (CCVDs) in primary healthcare institutions and identify gaps between urban and rural settings. A mixed-methods study was conducted in Henan Province from July 1 to October 30, 2024. For the quantitative component, a stratified random sample of 2,000 primary healthcare institutions was selected; 1,895 valid electronic questionnaires were analyzed. For the qualitative component, 24 staff from 8 purposively selected institutions participated in online semi-structured interviews. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square tests, while continuous variables with non-normal distribution were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Among 1,895 institutions (461 urban, 1,434 rural), the mean number of available CCVD drug categories was significantly lower in rural than in urban settings across most therapeutic classes ( P < 0.05). Only six medications (valsartan, amlodipine, epinephrine, atorvastatin, Compound Danshen Dripping Pills, and Suxiao Jiuxin Pills) reached an availability rate exceeding 80%. More than 30% of institutions reported unmet demand for nitroglycerin, amiodarone, digoxin, intravenous antihypertensives, and norepinephrine. Although over 80% of institutions could perform basic diagnostics (ECG, complete blood count, fasting glucose, lipid profile, serum creatinine, and urinalysis), qualitative interviews revealed substantial shortages of up-to-date equipment. Pronounced urban–rural disparities in medication availability persist. Despite basic testing capacity, diagnostic equipment is often obsolete and insufficient. Policy measures—including supply chain improvements, prescribing regulation reforms, and collaborative hospital networks—are urgently needed to strengthen CCVD care in primary settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: