Skip to main content

Table 1 Background characteristics of CBHI and comparison populations

From: Achieving universal health coverage through voluntary insurance: what can we learn from the experience of Lao PDR?

 

CBHI (n = 1000)

Comparison (n = 2000)

p-value

Sociodemographic characteristics

Mean household size (persons)

5.3

4.7

<0.001**

Marital status of household head (% married)

84.2%

80.4%

0.027*

Education

   

  Highest level = any primary

43.1%

42.7%

0.866

  Highest level = any secondary

31.6%

37.2%

0.028*

  Highest level = university/institute

5.1%

2.3%

0.002**

  Highest level = vocational

11.8%

8.4%

0.020*

  Age of HH head (mean years)

52.4

48.4

<0.001**

  HH is member of ethnic majority (1 = Tai-Kadai; 0 = other)

98.6%

98.2%

0.404

Total annual household consumption ($US)

$3,162

$2,729

<0.001**

Total annual per capita consumption, mean ($US)a

$754

$741

0.531

Total annual per capita income, mean ($US)

$863

$845.9

0.822

HHs living below $1.25 per day

21.6%

20.3%

0.435

Employment status

   

  Not working for money

21.1%

17.2%

0.009**

  Family farm-based agriculture

24.0%

22.8%

0.644

  Small-scale trading or family business

26.4%

31.2%

0.039*

  Work for someone else

28.5%

28.8%

0.878

HH heads with long-term employment contract (12 months +)

17.2%

11.6%

0.002**

Household is located in urban area (vs. semi-urban or rural)

30.1%

33.9%

0.413

Health status and risk aversion

HHs in which avg self-rated health is <3 on scale of 1 to 5

19.4%

14.9%

0.023*

HHs in which someone has disability or chronic condition

23.4%

14.5%

<0.001**

HHs in which someone had difficulty with activities in 3 months

16.3%

11.0%

0.008**

HHs in which s/o experienced deterioration of health in past year

11.9%

8.5%

.034*

Risk preferences: head of household is risk-averseb

37.1%

41.6%

0.041*

Other risk variables

   

HHs with any member age 65+

28.0%

21.9%

.001**

HHs with any member age 0-5

37.0%

37.6%

0.754

Mean # of females 15–49

1.6

1.4

<0.001**

HHs in which a woman has given birth in past 2 years

15.7%

13.9%

0.261

HHs with a pregnant woman

4.4%

2.3%

.004**

Attitudes towards sources of care and quality perceptions

HH respondents recommending a government hospital for an uninsured friend.

  A severe condition/emergency?

99.4%

99.5%

0.669

  A moderate condition?

94.6%

92.6%

0.138

  A minor condition?

97.5%

96.8%

0.42

HH respondents stating that services at district hospital are good

75.4%

64.8%

<0.001**

Exposure to CBHI and trust in scheme

   

HH attended CBHI campaign

92.5%

66.2%

<0.001**

How many of your close relatives/friends had joined CBHI prior to enrolment? (or how many are enrolled now?)

None

4.5%

30.7%

 

Some

49.2%

48.9%

<0.001**

Many

46.3%

20.4%

 

HHs reporting trust that contributions will be used properly

92.5%

69.7%

<0.001**

HHs reporting that members will get the benefits they pay for when they need them

95.8%

69.4%

<0.001**

  1. *Significant at 5%;**significant at 1%. Reported results are based on t-tests of means for continuous variables and chi-squares for proportions/categorical variables. All estimates account for sampling weights and village-level clustering. aPer capita expenditure was calculated using adult equivalents. bThis question presents the respondent with a gamble in which he/she must guess which hand contains money. The first pick is the same regardless of the hand selected but in the next bets, the stakes become increasingly higher. The variable was dichotomized to differentiate those who were completely risk averse from those who will take at least some risk. This methodology was adapted from a study in India by [34] and was also used by Krishnan et al, 2010 [35].
Back to article page

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us