Barriers to health care access and utilization among aged indigents under the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty Programme (LEAP): the perspective of users and service providers in north-western Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This article draws on the poverty and access to health care framework to explore the barriers to access and utilization of primary health care among aged indigents under the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty Programme (LEAP) in Ghana. BACKGROUND: Although many developing countries have made progress in extending primary health care to their populations following the Alma-Ata Declaration of 1978, the establishment of the Millennium Development Goals, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), barriers remain pervasive, particularly among vulnerable population groups. Previous studies have hardly paid in-depth attention to this important indicator for measuring progress toward achieving SDG 3. METHODOLOGY: To this end, we conducted a case study of access to health care services and utilization among aged indigents enrolled on the LEAP programme in the Daffiama Bussie Issa District of the Upper West. We collected and analyzed qualitative data from indigents aged 65 years and above, health care providers, and staff of the LEAP and the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS). FINDINGS: Our analysis found geographic inaccessibility of health care, high costs of drugs and related services, exclusion of essential services from NHIS benefits package, and irregular transfer of cash to negatively influence access and utilization of health care among aged LEAP beneficiaries in the district. In addition to the need to strengthen the economy, provide health infrastructure and human resources for health in rural areas, the government needs to review the beneficiaries' bimonthly stipends to reflect the daily minimum wage, eliminate the delay in payments, and review the benefits package of the NHIS to include essential services and medical devices commonly used by aged people. Yet implementing these recommendations has affordability implications that require innovation to mobilize additional resources and create the desired fiscal space and institutions that can sustainably implement universal coverage programmes such as the LEAP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".