↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of public subsidy for medical travel: does it protect against household impoverishment?

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Evaluation of public subsidy for medical travel: does it protect against household impoverishment?
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0726-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariyam Suzana, Helen Walls, Richard Smith, Johanna Hanefeld

Abstract

In resource-constrained health systems medical travel is a common alternative to seeking unavailable health services. This paper was motivated by the need to understand better the impact of such travel on households and health systems. We used primary data from 344 subsidized and 471 non-subsidized inbound medical travellers during June to December 2013 drawn from the North, Centre and South regions of the Maldives where three international airports are located. Using a researcher-administered questionnaire to acquire data, we calculated annual out-of-pocket (OOP) spending on health, food and non-food items among households where at least one member had travelled to another country for medical care within the last year and estimated the poverty head count using household income as a living standard measure. Most of the socio demographic indicators, and costs of treatment abroad among Maldivian medical travellers were similar across different household income levels with no statistical difference between subsidized and non-subsidized travellers (p value: 0.499). The government subsidy across income quintiles was also similar indicating that the Maldivian health financing structure supports equality rather than being equity-sensitive. There was no statistical difference in OOP expenditure on medical care abroad and annual OOP expenditure on healthcare was similar across income quintiles. Diseases of the circulatory system, eye and musculoskeletal system had the most impoverishing effect - diseases for which half of the patients, or less, did not receive the public subsidy. Annually, 6 and 14% of the medical travellers in the Maldives fell into poverty ($2 per day) before and after making OOP payments to health care. Evidence of a strong association between predominant public financing of medical travel and equality was found. With universal eligibility to the government subsidy for medical travel, utilization of treatment abroad, medical expenditures abroad and OOP expenditures on health among Maldivian medical travellers were similar between the poor and the rich. However, we conclude mixed evidence on the linkages between public financing of medical travel and impoverishment which needs to be further explored with comparison of impoverishment levels between households with and without medical travel.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 18 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 16%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,435,720
of 25,191,684 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#411
of 2,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,985
of 338,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#11
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,191,684 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 338,108 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 73% of its contemporaries.