MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Socio-Economic and Demographic Determinants of Health Insurance Consumption

2012· article· en· W1849690047 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nkanikpo Ibok Ibok

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)Marital statusDescriptive statisticsHealth insuranceRegression analysisBusinessSocioeconomic statusSocioeconomicsDemographic economicsActuarial scienceEconomicsEnvironmental healthEconomic growthHealth careSociologyPopulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzed factors affecting health insurance consumption in Akwa Ibom State. Primary data were collected from a total of 60 national Health Insurance Scheme patrons and non patron. Data were collected on consumer’s education, income, age; religion, sex, marital status, access to health insurance information, occupation and family size. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis. The socio-economic and demographic profile of the people revealed that most of the sampled NHIS patrons and non patrons were literate, engaged in meaningful employment, mostly married with average income, and were still in their active ages, and demonstrated meaningful exposure to insurance health information, which enable them to be or not to be active participants of the scheme. From the regression analysis, it was evident that all the variables except religion influenced insurance consumption positively whereas religion affects health insurance consumption negatively. Based on this, we recommended among other things, a re-alignment of health insurance marketing strategies with consumers socio-economic and demographic characteristics, as a measure to boost patronage. Key words: Socio-Economic; Demographic; Health insurance; Consumption

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207