Economist intelligence unit democracy index in relation to health services accessibility: a regression analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between political environment and health services accessibility (HSA) has not been the focus of any specific studies. The purpose of this study was to address this gap in the literature by examining the relationship between political environment and HSA. METHODS: This relationship that HSA indicators (physicians, nurses and hospital beds per 10 000 people) has with political environment was analyzed with multiple least-squares regression using the components of democracy (electoral processes and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties). The components of democracy were represented by the 2011 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index (EIUDI) sub-scores. The EIUDI sub-scores and the HSA indicators were evaluated for significant relationships with multiple least-squares regression. RESULTS: While controlling for a country's geographic location and level of democracy, we found that two components of a nation's political environment: functioning of government and political participation, and their interaction had significant relationships with the three HSA indicators. CONCLUSIONS: These study findings are of significance to health professionals because they examine the political contexts in which citizens access health services, they come from research that is the first of its kind, and they help explain the effect political environment has on health.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".