Endorsement of universal health coverage financial principles in Burkina Faso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In West Africa, health system funding rarely involves cross-subsidization among population segments. In some countries, a few community-based or professional health insurance programs are present, but coverage is very low. The financial principles underlying universal health coverage (UHC) sustainability and solidarity are threefold: 1) anticipation of potential health risks; 2) risk sharing and; 3) socio-economic status solidarity. In Burkina Faso, where decision-makers are favorable to national health insurance, we measured endorsement of these principles and discerned which management configurations would achieve the greatest adherence. We used a sequential exploratory design. In a qualitative step (9 interviews, 12 focus groups), we adapted an instrument proposed by Goudge et al. (2012) to the local context and addressed desirability bias. Then, in a quantitative step (1255 respondents from the general population), we measured endorsement. Thematic analysis (qualitative) and logistic regressions (quantitative) were used. High levels of endorsement were found for each principle. Actual practices showed that anticipation and risk sharing were not only intentions. Preferences were given to solidarity between socio-economic status (SES) levels and progressivity. Although respondents seemed to prefer the national level for implementation, their current solidarity practices were mainly focused on close family. Thus, contribution levels should be set so that the entire family benefits from healthcare. Some critical conditions must be met to make UHC financial principles a reality through health insurance in Burkina Faso: trust, fair and mandatory contributions, and education.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".