Developing economic measures for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families on out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective Out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure (OOPHE) has a significant impact on marginalised households. The purpose of this study was to modify a pre-existing OOPHE survey for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households with children. Methods The OOPHE survey was derived through a scoping review, face and content validity, including judgement quantification with content experts. Exploratory factor analyses determined factor numbers for construct validity. Repeatability through test-retest processes and reliability was assessed through internal consistency. Results The OOPHE survey had 168 items and was piloted on 67 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents. Construct validity assessment generated a 62-item correlation matrix with a three-factor model. Across these factors, item loadings varied, 10 items with high correlations (>0.70) and 20 with low correlations (<0.40). OOPHE survey retest was conducted with 47 families, where 43 items reached slight to fair levels of agreement. Conclusion The low level of item loadings to factors in the OOPHE survey indicates interconnectedness across the three-factor model, and reliability results suggest systemic differences. Impeding factors may include cohort homogeneity and survey length. It is unknown how cultural and social nuances specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households impacts on results. Further work is warranted. What is known about the topic? Out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure (OOPHE) are expenses not covered by universal taxpayer-funded health insurance. In elderly Australians or those with chronic conditions, OOPHE can cause substantial burden and financial hardship and, in the most extreme cases, induce bankruptcy. Despite higher hospital admissions and disease burden, little is known about how OOPHE impacts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. Additionally, in Australia, no OOPHE survey tools have been appropriately assessed; this includes for use with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. What does this paper add? This pilot study modified a pre-existing Australian OOPHE survey for use with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households with children. Knowledge interface methodology was used to bring together Indigenous knowledges with quantitative survey methods. This was critical to ensuring Indigenous knowledges were central to the overall pilot study across item creation, participant focus, outcome contextualisation, interpretation, and resetting dominant norms. Outcomes have demonstrated pertinent points for future work in this area, such as the complexities in developing robust, culturally safe and specific surveys, which reach ideal psychometric levels of validity and reliability for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Certainly, it raises questions for current and future research using surveys in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, which are generic and not purpose-built. What are the implications for practitioners? We recommend that OOPHE surveys should be developed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families from the outset, so they can include important contextual factors for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».