The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Comparative Study on Outcome of Government and Co-Operative Community-Based Health Insurance in Nepal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00250 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chhabi Lal Ranabhat, Chun-Bae Kim, Dipendra Raman Singh, Myung Bae Park |
| Abstract |
There are different models for community-based health insurance (CBHI), and in Nepal, among them, the government and the local communities (co-ops) are responsible for operating the CBHI models that are in practice. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes in relation to benefit packages, population coverage, inclusiveness, healthcare utilization, and promptness of treatment for the two types of CBHI models in Nepal. This study was an observational and interactive descriptive study using the concurrent mixed approach of data collection, framing, and compilation. Quantitative data were collected from records, and qualitative data were collected from key informants in all 12 CBHI groups. Unstructured questionnaires, observation checklists, and memo notepads were used for data collection. Descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney U test were used when appropriate. Ethically, written informed consent was obtained from the respondents who participated in the study, and they were told that they could withdraw from the study anytime. The study revealed the following: new enrolment did not increase in either group; however, the healthcare utilization rate did (Government 107% and co-ops 137%), while the benefit packages remained almost same for both groups. Overall, inclusiveness was higher for the government group. For the CBHI co-ops, enrollment among the religious minority and the discount negotiated with the hospitals for treatment were significantly higher, and the promptness in reaching a hospital was significantly faster (p < 0.05) than that in the government-operated CBHI. Findings indicate that CBHI through co-ops would be a better model because of its lower costs and ability to enhance self-responsiveness and the overall health system. Health insurance coverage is the most important component to achieve universal health coverage. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 16% |
| Lecturer | 8 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 13% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 27 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,153,379
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,186
of 10,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,425
of 318,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#20
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 318,615 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.