MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7092178529 · doi:10.30541/v0i0pp.83-88

Making Sehat Sahulat Programme Sustainable

2025· article· W7092178529 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Pakistan Development Review · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)PovertyPrivate sectorHealth careHealth servicesSustainabilityKhyber pakhtunkhwaUniversal design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractToday, millions of people in low-income countries lack access to health services due to accessibility and affordability issues. Health financing refers to the “function of a health system concerned with mobilizing and allocating money to cover health needs. There are various healthcare financing models around the globe; the two broader ones are;The supply-side models provide free-of-cost health services in public hospitals, i.e., Canada, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.The demand-driven models encourage citizens to purchase health insurance, the government only partly finances the premium for marginalized segments, i.e., USA, UK, and many others.The Sustainability Issues of Sehat Sahulat Program (SSP)Pakistan has a mixed health financing system where the private sector dominates. Before the SSP’s emergence, the country faced a twofold burden: only 0.6% of the health budget as percentage of GDP, and more than two-thirds of the financing by households themselves.The federal government took a major initiative in 2015 by launching the Sehat Sahulat Program (SSP) in a few districts (excluding the KP province) to provide free in-door health services to poor and vulnerable segments having poverty scores up to 32.5 in the BISP database. At the same time, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government independently started it in four districts. Until 2020, the program served only marginalized segments by using the BISP data. However, the KP government declared it universal in 2020, and the same approach was followed by the federal government in 2021. There are settled package rates against each sickness; however, the federal and KP vary over premium rates and treatment packages.There are five stakeholders to run the program; the primary stakeholder is the State Life Insurance Company (SLIC), which is responsible for all operational activities, including; onboard empanel hospitals, providing free-of-cost in-door health services, and addressing all service-related grievances. So far the program has enrolled 43 million families by covering 190 million population of country. More than 14.6 million individuals have used in-door health facility in empanel hospitals (till November 2023).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.008

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Pakistan Development ReviewSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207