MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470592829 · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0862

Private Sector An Important But Not Dominant Provider Of Key Health Services In Low- And Middle-Income Countries

2016· article· en· W2470592829 on OpenAlexaff
Karen A. Grépin

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Affairs · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivate sectorBusinessDeveloping countryPublic sectorEconomic growthHealth careInformal sectorPrivate sector involvementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is debate about the role of the private sector in providing services in the health systems of low- and middle-income countries and about how the private sector could help achieve the goal of universal health coverage. Yet the role that the private sector plays in the delivery of health services is poorly understood. Using data for the period 1990-2013 from 205 Demographic and Health Surveys in seventy low- and middle-income countries, I analyzed the use of the private sector for the treatment of diarrhea and of fever or cough in children, for antenatal care, for institutional deliveries, and as a source of modern contraception for women. I found that private providers were the dominant source of treatment for childhood illnesses but not for the other services. I also found no evidence of increased use of the private sector over time. There is tremendous variation in use of the private sector across countries and health services. Urban and wealthier women disproportionately use the private sector, compared to rural and poorer women. The private sector plays an important role in providing coverage, but strategies to further engage the sector, if they are to be effective, will need to take into consideration the variation in its use.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations94
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth AffairsSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207