MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409793076 · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdv176

Health-seeking behaviour during times of illness: a study among adults in a resource poor setting in Ghana

2015· article· en· W2409793076 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Kuuire, Elijah Bisung, Andrea Rishworth, Jenna Dixon, Isaac Luginaah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of WaterlooQueen's University
FundersCentre for International Governance InnovationMakerere UniversityInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsNational Health Interview SurveyMedicineLogistic regressionEnvironmental healthHealth carePublic healthHealth facilityHealth equityHealth servicesGerontologyNursingPopulationEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implementation of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) in Ghana aims to bridge the gap between the poor and rich in health-care access and utilization. Guided by Andersen's behavioural model of health services utilization, we examine the factors that influence health-care services utilization in a resource poor setting. Data for the study were obtained through randomly selected respondents in our study location (n = 1137). Logistic regression models were fitted to the data to examine the impact of enabling, predisposing and need factors on health-care-seeking behaviour during last illness. Individuals in the poor and poorest wealth quintiles who are enrolled in the NHIS were less likely to seek treatment in a health facility during their last illness compared with individuals in the richest wealth quintile who are enrolled in the NHIS (β = 0.41, ρ < 0.01 and β = 0.45, ρ < 0.05, respectively). Although health insurance is supposed to increase the likelihood of utilizing health services, poor people in our study who are enrolled in the NHIS are still less likely to utilize health services, suggesting that the NHIS has not succeeded in bridging inequalities in health services utilization between the poor and rich.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations67
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public HealthSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207