MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409860511 · doi:10.52609/jmlph.v5i3.203

Knowledge, Perception, and Willingness to Enrol in a Health Insurance Scheme: A Survey Among Uninsured Persons in Southern Nigeria

2025· article· en· W4409860511 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Unyime Israel Eshiet, Victor Mba, Blessing Udo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Medicine Law & Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionHealth insuranceWillingness to payScheme (mathematics)Actuarial scienceBusinessEnvironmental healthSocioeconomicsMedicinePsychologyHealth careEconomic growthSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Out-of-pocket payments for healthcare services hinders the attainment of universal health coverage. Objectives: To assess the current level of knowledge, perception, and willingness to enrol in a health insurance scheme among uninsured persons in Nigeria. Methods: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted among residents of Uyo, a city in southern Nigeria, who had not enrolled in any health insurance scheme Results: About 14.3% (n = 72) of the study participants visited healthcare facilities at least once a week to address medical conditions for either themselves or their dependents. Although 335 (66.5%) of our respondents had heard of health insurance schemes, only 92 (18.3%) claimed to know how they work. Moreover, about 42.3% (n = 213) of our respondent perceived health insurance schemes as being expensive, while 102 (20.2%) considered it a waste of resources. Only 25.4% (n = 128) of the study participants were willing to subscribe to a health insurance scheme. Conclusion: Knowledge of the concept of health insurance as well as awareness of the existence of affordable insurance plans is poor in a significant proportion of the population studied. Many respondents had a poor perception regarding health insurance schemes with the majority unwilling to enrol in one.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Medicine Law & Public HealthSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207