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].