Barriers to Health Care Affordability among Parents of Children with Atopic Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstracts: Background: Pediatric atopic dermatitis (AD) can pose a significant financial burden to families. However, no studies exist that assess the impact of pediatric AD on health care access/affordability at the parental level. Objective: Explore the effects of childhood AD on parental access to health care and the socioeconomic factors that might exacerbate these problems. Methods: The National Health Interview Survey was used to analyze 48,329,314 participants who answered the validated question on pediatric AD. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the association between pediatric AD and parental access to care. Results: Parents of children with AD were more likely to have difficulty accessing prescription medications (aOR: 1.47; [95% CI 1.31–1.65]), follow-up care (1.36; [95% CI 1.17–1.57]), specialist care (aOR: 1.53; [95% CI 1.33–1.75]), and more likely to purchase medications from abroad (aOR: 1.35; [95% CI 1.09–1.67]) relative to their counterparts with children without AD. Within the AD cohort, uninsured or lower income participants had higher odds of facing these barriers to care. Conclusions: Parents of children with AD are more likely to face barriers in health care access, and significant disparities exist based on sociodemographic characteristics.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".