↓ Skip to main content

Equity in out-of-pocket payment in Chile

Overview of attention for article published in Revista de Saúde Pública, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Equity in out-of-pocket payment in Chile
Published in
Revista de Saúde Pública, May 2017
DOI 10.1590/s1518-8787.2017051006666
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mondaca, Alicia Lorena Núñez, Chi, Chunhuei, Alicia Lorena Núñez Mondaca, Chunhuei Chi

Abstract

To assess the distribution of financial burden in Chile, with a focus on the burden and progressivity of out-of-pocket payment. Based on the principle of ability to pay, we explore factors that contribute to inequities in the health system finance and issues about the burden of out-of-pocket payment, as well as the progressivity and redistributive effect of out-of-pocket payment in Chile. Our analysis is based on data from the 2006 National Survey on Satisfaction and Out-of-Pocket Payments. Results from this study indicate evidence of inequity, in spite of the progressivity of the healthcare system. Our analysis also identifies relevant policy variables such as education, insurance system, and method of payment that should be taken into consideration in the ongoing debates and research in improving the Chilean system. In order to reduce the detected disparities among income groups, healthcare priorities should target low-income groups. Furthermore, policies should explore changes in the access to education and its impact on equity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 25%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 29%
Social Sciences 7 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 10 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,896,592
of 11,527,700 outputs
Outputs from Revista de Saúde Pública
#165
of 368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,647
of 262,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista de Saúde Pública
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,527,700 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 262,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.