MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334700582 · doi:10.1068/c1119r

Ghana's National Health Insurance Scheme: Helping the Poor or Leaving Them Behind?

2011· article· en· W2334700582 on OpenAlexaff
Jenna Dixon, Eric Y. Tenkorang, Isaac Luginaah

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning C Government and Policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational Health Interview SurveyMandateNational health insuranceHealth insuranceEconomic growthBusinessSocioeconomicsEnvironmental healthMedicinePolitical scienceHealth careEconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present findings on the determinants of enrolment for Ghana's National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS). With this study we contribute to the literature by providing one of the few quantitative analyses on a nationwide survey. Using data from the 2008 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey, we find that those from the poorest households remain significantly less likely to enrol in the NHIS compared with respondents from wealthy households, even after controlling for theoretically relevant variables. However, our analysis also shows that respondents in Northern Ghana, considered the poorest part of the country, are more likely to be enroled than those in Southern Ghana. The findings present a clear challenge to the original mandate of the NHIS as a propoor policy and suggest that health policy makers should consider expanding and clarifying the criteria for declaring a person as indigent and that the scheme be further evaluated for obstacles that may be hindering enrolment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations74
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning C Government and PolicySame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207