↓ Skip to main content

A cross-sectional study of parental awareness of and reasons for lack of health insurance among minority children, and the impact on health, access to care, and unmet needs

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 2,134)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
31 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
32 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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
A cross-sectional study of parental awareness of and reasons for lack of health insurance among minority children, and the impact on health, access to care, and unmet needs
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0331-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Glenn Flores, Hua Lin, Candy Walker, Michael Lee, Alberto Portillo, Monica Henry, Marco Fierro, Kenneth Massey

Abstract

Minority children have the highest US uninsurance rates; Latino and African-American children account for 53 % of uninsured American children, despite comprising only 48 % of the total US child population. The study aim was to examine parental awareness of and the reasons for lacking health insurance in Medicaid/CHIP-eligible minority children, and the impact of the children's uninsurance on health, access to care, unmet needs, and family financial burden. For this cross-sectional study, a consecutive series of uninsured, Medicaid/CHIP-eligible Latino and African-American children was recruited at 97 urban Texas community sites, including supermarkets, health fairs, and schools. Measures/outcomes were assessed using validated instruments, and included sociodemographic characteristics, uninsurance duration, reasons for the child being uninsured, health status, special healthcare needs, access to medical and dental care, unmet needs, use of health services, quality of care, satisfaction with care, out-of-pocket costs of care, and financial burden. The mean time uninsured for the 267 participants was 14 months; 5 % had never been insured. The most common reason for insurance loss was expired and never reapplied (30 %), and for never being insured, high insurance costs. Only 49 % of parents were aware that their uninsured child was Medicaid/CHIP eligible. Thirty-eight percent of children had suboptimal health, and 2/3 had special healthcare needs, but 64 % have no primary-care provider; 83 % of parents worry about their child's health more than others. Unmet healthcare needs include: healthcare, 73 %; mental healthcare, 70 %; mobility aids/devices, 67 %; dental, 61 %; specialty care, 57 %; and vision, 46 %. Due to the child's health, 35 % of parents had financial problems, 23 % cut work hours, and 10 % ceased work. Higher proportions of Latinos lack primary-care providers, and higher proportions of African-Americans experience family financial burden. Half of parents of uninsured minority children are unaware that their children are Medicaid/CHIP-eligible. These uninsured children have suboptimal health, impaired access to care, and major unmet needs. The child's health causes considerable family financial burden, and one in 10 parents ceased work. The study findings indicate urgent needs for better parental education about Medicaid/CHIP, and for improved Medicaid/CHIP outreach and enrollment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 137 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Researcher 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 44 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 50 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 261. 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 22 February 2017.
All research outputs
#132,787
of 24,629,540 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#6
of 2,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,410
of 305,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#2
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,629,540 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 305,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.