↓ Skip to main content

Decomposing health inequality with population-based surveys: a case study in Rwanda

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, May 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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
Decomposing health inequality with population-based surveys: a case study in Rwanda
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0769-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kai Liu, Chunling Lu

Abstract

Ensuring equal access to care and providing financial risk protection are at the center of the global health agenda. While Rwanda has made impressive progress in improving health outcomes, inequalities in medical care utilization and household catastrophic health spending (HCHS) between the impoverished and non-impoverished populations persist. Decomposing inequalities will help us understand the factors contributing to inequalities and design effective policy instruments in reducing inequalities. This study aims to decompose the inequalities in medical care utilization among those reporting illnesses and HCHS between the poverty and non-poverty groups in Rwanda. Using the 2005 and 2010 nationally representative Integrated Living Conditions Surveys, our analysis focuses on measuring contributions to inequalities from poverty status and other sources. We conducted multivariate logistic regression analysis to obtain poverty's contribution to inequalities by controlling for all observed covariates. We used multivariate nonlinear decomposition method with logistic regression models to partition the relative and absolute contributions from other sources to inequalities due to compositional or response effects. Poverty status accounted for the majority of inequalities in medical care utilization (absolute contribution 0.093 in 2005 and 0.093 in 2010) and HCHS (absolute contribution 0.070 in 2005 and 0.032 in 2010). Health insurance status (absolute contribution 0.0076 in 2005 and 0.0246 in 2010) and travel time to health centers (absolute contribution 0.0025 in 2005 and 0.0014 in 2010) were significant contributors to inequality in medical care utilization. Health insurance status (absolute contribution 0.0021 in 2005 and 0.0011 in 2010), having under-five children (absolute contribution 0.0012 in 2005 and 0.0011 in 2010), and having disabled family members (absolute contribution 0.0002 in 2005 and 0.0001 in 2010) were significant contributors to inequality in HCHS. Between 2005 and 2010, the main sources of the inequalities remained unchanged. Expanding insurance coverage and reducing travel time to health facilities for those living in poverty could be used as policy instruments to mitigate inequalities in medical care utilization and HCHS between the poverty and non-poverty groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 22%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Lecturer 4 4%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 27 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 17 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 6%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 32 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 01 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,009,773
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#333
of 1,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,833
of 326,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#7
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,929 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 82% 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 326,024 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.