↓ Skip to main content

Underinsurance in Children with Special Health Care Needs: The Impact of Definition on Findings

Overview of attention for article published in Maternal and Child Health Journal, October 2012
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

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Underinsurance in Children with Special Health Care Needs: The Impact of Definition on Findings
Published in
Maternal and Child Health Journal, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10995-012-1155-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie K. Preskitt, Rene P. McEldowney, Beverly A. Mulvihill, Martha S. Wingate, Nir Menachemi

Abstract

To identify differences in groups of children with special healthcare needs (CSHCN) identified as underinsured by two alternate definitions and discuss implications for policy decisions based on using one definition over another. Secondary data from the National Survey of CSHCN 2005/2006 were analyzed. Only CSHCN who were continuously-insured for 12 months were included in analyses. We identified groups of underinsured CSHCN using two general definitions ("economic" and "attitudinal") and three mutually-exclusive groups (identified by both definitions, identified by attitudinal but not economic, and identified by economic but not attitudinal). Key variables included demographics and condition characteristics. Different underinsurance rates were identified [attitudinal = 30.9 % (n = 11,470); economic = 22.7 % (n = 8,447)] with fair agreement by kappa score (κ = 0.3194; Z = 65.91; p > 0.0001). Differences across mutually-exclusive groups included family income ≥400 % FPL (attitudinal only = 34.2 %, economic only = 16.3 %, both = 18.4 %; p < 0.001) and high severity (attitudinal only = 42.5 %, economic only = 68.5 %, both = 69.9 %; p < 0.001). CSHCN who needed equipment/supplies/home health (OR = 1.31, p < 0.001) had increased odds of being identified as underinsured by the economic, but not attitudinal definition. CSHCN with private insurance had increased odds of being identified by attitudinal only or both definitions, but not by economic only (AO: OR = 1.41, p < 0.001; BOTH: OR = 2.36, p < 0.001). Despite overlap between the two definitions, choosing either one excludes some CSHCN, potentially underestimating the extent of underinsurance and masking important findings related to specific conditions characteristics. A definition that comprehensively identifies and describes underinsurance is vital to translating health insurance coverage expansion into benefit packages that meet complex health and service needs.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 32 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 18%
Social Sciences 5 15%
Psychology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 August 2014.
All research outputs
#7,942,395
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#839
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,316
of 175,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#16
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 175,022 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.