↓ Skip to main content

Factors for healthcare utilization and effect of mutual health insurance on healthcare utilization in rural communities of South Achefer Woreda, North West, Ethiopia

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Factors for healthcare utilization and effect of mutual health insurance on healthcare utilization in rural communities of South Achefer Woreda, North West, Ethiopia
Published in
Health Economics Review, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13561-018-0200-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiwot Tilahun, Desta Debalkie Atnafu, Geta Asrade, Amare Minyihun, Yihun Mulugeta Alemu

Abstract

To identify factors for healthcare utilization and to describe effect of Mutual Health Insurance on health service utilization in rural community in South Achefer, North West Ethiopia. Across-sectional study was conducted. A total of 652 households consented to participate in the study (326 insured and 326 uninsured households). Propensity score matching was used to explain possible differences in the baseline variables between enrolled and un-enrolled households. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors for healthcare utilization. Healthcare utilization among insured households was 50.5% (95% CI: 44.8%, 56.2%). Whilst among uninsured households, healthcare utilization was 29.3% (95% CI: 24.11, 34.47). In general, the overall healthcare utilization was 39.89% (95% CI: 35.7, 43.8). The overall increase in patient-attendance given illness among insured households was 25.2% higher compared with uninsured (t = 4.94, 95% CI: 0.145, 0.359). Educated (primary and above) (AOR = 1.84; 95% CI: 1.14, 2.98), chronic patient (AOR = 1.86; 95% CI: 1.13, 3.06), first choice was health facilities at the point of illness (AOR = 6.33; 95% CI: 2.97-13.51), rich (AOR = 2.1; 95%CI: 1.29, 3.43), and insured (AOR = 2.16; 95% CI: 1.45, 3.23) were independently associated with increased healthcare utilization. Enrolment to mutual health insurance increases healthcare utilization. Presence of illness in the households, household earnings, educational status, first choice of treatment at point of illness, and membership to Mutual Health Insurance scheme should be targeted during escalating of healthcare utilization.

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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Lecturer 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 31 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 32 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,543,612
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#263
of 436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,472
of 334,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#13
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 334,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.