Compared With Other Countries, Women In The US Are More Likely Than Men To Forgo Medicines Because Of Cost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cost-related nonadherence to prescription medicines is a common problem with important implications for population health. Relative to men, women may be more vulnerable to cost-related nonadherence because of higher health needs and lower financial resources. Using data from the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey, we compared cost-related nonadherence among younger (ages 18-64) and older (ages 65 and older) women and men in eleven high-income countries. Among younger adults, the unadjusted female-male disparity was larger in the US compared with other countries: One in four younger women reported cost-related nonadherence compared with one in seven younger men. This large disparity persisted after adjustment for age, income, and chronic conditions. We also found smaller but significant female-male differences among younger women in Australia and Canada. We did not find significant female-male differences among older adults in adjusted analyses in any country. Higher rates of cost-related nonadherence among younger women, and US women in particular, may produce important sex-related disparities in health outcomes that should be further explored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".