| Title |
The Impact of the Iowa S-SCHIP Program on Access, Health Status, and the Family Environment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambulatory Pediatrics, September 2003
|
| DOI | 10.1367/1539-4409(2003)003<0263:tiotis>2.0.co;2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter C. Damiano, Jean C. Willard, Elizabeth T. Momany, Jyoti Chowdhury |
| Abstract |
To determine the effect of the Iowa Separate State Child Health Insurance Program (S-SCHIP) on need for services, utilization and access to care, child health status, and the family environment. A longitudinal pretest-posttest panel survey was used to evaluate differences in children's access to health care, health status, and family environment at the beginning of the program and after 1 year. Written surveys with telephone follow-up calls were used to collect the data. Pre- and postquestionnaire results for 463 children were matched and compared using the McNemar test for correlated proportions and the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Approximately 71% of families responded to both surveys. Similar rates of perceived need for each of 6 service areas were found after being in the program for a year as before. Unmet need was significantly reduced among those needing services: medical care (27% before, 6% after), specialty care (40% before, 13% after), dental care (30% before, 10% after), vision care (46% before, 12% after), behavioral and emotional care (42% before, 18% after), and prescription medications (21% before, 13% after). Overall health status was rated significantly better (ie, excellent: 37% before, 42% after). Ninety-five percent of families reported a reduction in family stress, and there was significantly less worry about the ability to pay for their child's health care (92% before, 57% after). The activities of fewer children were limited because of potential health care costs. The Iowa S-SCHIP program improved access to care and the family environment for children enrolled during the first year without a change in perceived need for services. |
Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.
Mendeley demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 30% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |