Willingness to pay for health insurance and its associated factors among staff of local authorities in Petaling District, Selangor, 2016
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Currently, Malaysia finds that to fund health care primarily through taxation is no longer sustainable. Health insurance is another option to finance health care in a country. However before any major restructuring is done, the preference of the general population on health insurance can be assessed by eliciting values using willingness to pay (WTP) method. The aim of this study is to determine the proportion of WTP for health insurance and its associated factors among staff of the local authorities in Petaling District. Methodology: This is a cross-sectional study conducted among the staff of local authorities in Petaling District using simple random sampling. A self-administered questionnaire was used to elicit respondents’ WTP for health insurance using the contingent valuation method by a double bounded dichotomous choice format and to determine the factors that affect the willingness of the respondents to pay for health insurance. Variables were described using frequency and percentage for categorical data and mean and standard deviations for continuous variables. Chi square test was then used to measure the associations. Results: Among the respondents, 61.1% were willing to pay for health insurance. Of those, 25.7% were willing to pay maximum of RM20 per head per month followed by 23.0% that were willing to pay RM40 per head per month. The range of their maximum WTP amount was RM5 up to RM200 per head per month or RM 22 to RM 880 per household per month. Factors that were significantly associated with WTP for health insurance were education (p = 0.004), monthly salary for respondents (p = 0.042); as well as knowledge questions on who will be allowed to join SHI (p = 0.002), difference in payment in terms of health status (p = 0.015), difference in payment for those unemployed (p = 0.03) and regarding the allowance to take additional coverage from private health insurances (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Majority of the respondents were willing to pay for health insurance. Level of education, monthly salary and knowledge regarding health insurance were the factors associated with WTP for health insurance.
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 | 0,000 | 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 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».