Health sector reform and equity: a study at a family health center affiliated to health insurance organization in Alexandria.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1990's witnessed a wave of reform in health systems of many countries. Health sector reform (HSR) initiatives aimed at improving health status, utilizers' satisfaction, as well as equity and accessibility of care. This study aims at exploring the question of whether there is a socioeconomically- based differential access to services provided by a family health center applying HSR. A total of 248 utilizers were randomly selected and interviewed. An access index comprised of eight elements was developed to measure access and its corollary equity. Results demonstrated that the majority belonged to the low middle socio-economic class and one- quarter belonged to the low class. Approximately 9/10 of utilizers had high access to the services offered. Mean access index score for all utilizers was above the 90% mark. ANOVA analysis of mean access index according to socio-economic class revealed that there is no statistically significant disparity among various socio-economic classes regarding their access to care. However, it was demonstrated that higher classes had a higher opinion concerning the completeness of physical examination during the initial visit than lower classes. It was recommended to establish an appropriate policy framework to assure optimal standards of equity, preferably a 100% of high access as measured through the access index devised in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".