MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153025271 · doi:10.1002/hec.1633

Ghana's national health insurance scheme in the context of the health MDGs: an empirical evaluation using propensity score matching

2010· article· en· W2153025271 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Mensah, Joseph R. Oppong, Christoph Μ. Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersGlobal Development NetworkBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsPropensity score matchingContext (archaeology)MedicineGovernment (linguistics)Health careNational Health Interview SurveyMillennium Development GoalsNational health insuranceActuarial scienceEconomic growthEnvironmental healthBusinessDeveloping countryEconomicsGeographyPopulationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2003 the Government of Ghana established a National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) to improve health-care access for Ghanaians and eventually replace the cash-and-carry system. This study evaluates an important aspect of its promise in the context of the Millennium Development Goals #4 and #5 which deal with the health of women and children. We use Propensity Score Matching techniques to balance the relevant background characteristics in our survey data and compare health indicators of recent mothers who are enrolled in the NHIS with those who are not. Our findings suggest that NHIS women are more likely to receive prenatal care, deliver at a hospital, have their deliveries attended by trained health professionals, and experience less birth complications. We conclude that NHIS is an effective tool for improving health outcomes among those who are covered, which should encourage the Ghanaian government to promote further enrollment, in particular among the poor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.149
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.149
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.114 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations234
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth EconomicsSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207