MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191076811 · doi:10.1016/j.lana.2021.100026

Barriers to Voting and Access to Health Insurance Among US Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study

2021· article· en· W3191076811 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roman Pabayo, Sze Yan Liu, Erin Grinshteyn, Daniel M. Cook, Peter Muennig

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Regional Health - Americas · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyVotingHealth insuranceEnvironmental healthBusinessPolitical scienceMedicineEconomic growthHealth careEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Many states in the United States (US) have introduced barriers to impede voting among individuals from socio-economically disadvantaged groups. This may reduce representation thereby decreasing access to lifesaving goods, such as health insurance. Methods: We used cross-sectional data from 242,727 adults in the 50 states and District of Columbia participating in the US 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). To quantify access to voting, the Cost of Voting Index (COVI), a global measure of barriers to voting within a state during a US election was used. Multilevel modeling was used to determine whether barriers to voting were associated with health insurance status after adjusting for individual- and state-level covariates. Analyses were stratified by racial/ethnic identity, household income, and age group. Findings: A one standard deviation (SD) increase in COVI score was associated with an overall increased odds of being uninsured (OR=1.25; 95% CI=1.22, 1.28). This association was also present for Non-Hispanic Black (OR=1.18; 95% CI=1.13,1.22), Hispanic (1.18; 95% CI=1.15,1.21), and Asian (OR=1.45;95%CI=1.27,1.66), and other Non-Hispanic (OR=1.12, 95% CI=1.06, 1.18) US adults, but not for White Non-Hispanic and Native US adults. Likewise, a one SD increase in COVI among adults from low-income households was associated with an increased odds of being uninsured (OR=1.32; 95% CI=1.26,1.38) but there was no association among individuals with incomes greater than $75,000. This association was similar for younger US adults (OR=1.22; 95%CI=1.20,1.24) but not among those aged 45 to 64. Interpretation: Groups commonly targeted by voting restriction laws-those with low incomes, who are racial minorities, and who are young-are also less likely to be insured in states with more voting restrictions. However, those who are wealthier, white or older are no more likely to be uninsured irrespective of the level of voting restrictions. Funding: Pabayo is a Tier II Canada Research Chair.

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)0.002
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Regional Health - AmericasSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207