MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963089996 · doi:10.1002/hpm.2857

Health insurance enrolment in the Upper West Region of Ghana: Does food security matter?

2019· article· en· W2963089996 on OpenAlexaff
Roger Antabe, Kilian Nasung Atuoye, Yujiro Sano, Vincent Kuuire, Sylvester Zachariah Galaa, Isaac Luginaah

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Health Planning and Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsGeneral Electric (Canada)University of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood securityHealth securityBusinessGeographyEnvironmental healthMedicinePublic healthAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toward achieving universal health coverage, Ghana's national health insurance has been acclaimed as a pro-poor scheme, yet been criticized for leaving the poor behind. Arising from this is how poverty has been operationalized and how poor people are targeted for enrolment into the scheme. We examine the role of food insecurity (not currently considered) as a multidimensional vulnerability concept on enrolment into Ghana's health insurance using binary logistics regression on cross-sectional survey of household heads (n = 1438) in the Upper West Region of Ghana. Our analyses show that heads of severely food-insecure households were significantly less likely to enroll in national health insurance scheme (NHIS) relative to households who reported being food-secure (OR = 0.36, P < .05). We also found education, occupation, and religion as significant predictors of health insurance enrolment. Based on our findings, it is crucial to incorporate food security status in the identification of vulnerable people for free enrolment in Ghana's health insurance.

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)0.004
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Health Planning and ManagementSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207