↓ Skip to main content

Inputs for universal health coverage: a methodological contribution to finding proxy indicators for financial hardship due to health expenditure

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inputs for universal health coverage: a methodological contribution to finding proxy indicators for financial hardship due to health expenditure
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12913-014-0577-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Priyanka Saksena, Thomas Smith, Fabrizio Tediosi

Abstract

BackgroundUniversal health coverage is high on national health agendas of many countries at the moment. Absence of financial hardship is a key component of universal health coverage and should be monitored regularly. However, relevant household survey data, which is traditionally needed for this analysis is not frequently collected in most countries and in some countries, has not been collected at all. As such, proxy indicators for financial hardship would be very useful.MethodsWe use data from the World Health Survey and use multi-level modeling with national and household level characteristics to see which indicators have a consistent and robust relationship with financial hardship. To strengthen the validity of our findings, we also use different measures of financial hardship.ResultsThere are several household level characteristics that seem to have a consistent relationship with financial hardship. However there is only one strong candidate for a proxy indicator at the national level¿ the share of out-of-pocket payments in total health expenditure. Additionally, the Gini coefficient of total household expenditure was also correlated to financial hardship in most of our models.ConclusionThe national level indicators related only weakly to the risk of financial hardship. Hence, there should not be an over-reliance on them and collecting good quality household survey data is still a superior option for monitoring financial hardship.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 7 26%
Unknown 7 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 11%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2021.
All research outputs
#7,000,240
of 25,292,646 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,351
of 8,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,821
of 374,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#48
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,646 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 374,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.