ArticleJournal of public health research2017
Economic Benefits and Treatment Progress as Determinants of the Sustainability of Vietnamese Voluntary Co-Located Patients Clusters.
Article in Journal of public health research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survey data on Vietnamese propensity to attend periodic general health examinations.Scientific data · 2017Article
- Health Care Payments in Vietnam: Patients' Quagmire of Caring for Health versus Economic Destitution.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past 15 years or so, in Vietnam, a phenomenon has steadily grown more and more widespread: the forming of co-located patients communities. Poor patients choose to live together, seeking/lending supports from/to one another. Despite the undeniable existence of these communities, little is researched or known about how co-located patients perceive the value of what they receive as cluster members, or how they assess their future connection to the communities they are living in. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study employs multiple logistic regressions method to investigate relationships between factors such as perceived satisfaction from community-provided financial means, reported health improvements, along with patients' short-and longer-term commitments to these communities.
resultsThe results suggest meaningful empirical relationships: 1) between, on one hand, gender, perceived values and sustainability of patients communities, financial stress faced by patients and the financial benefits they received from the community, and, on the other hand, their propensity to stay connected to it; and 2) between economic conditions, length of stay with a community, general level of satisfaction, health improvements on one hand and long-term commitment to these communities on the other hand.
conclusionsPatients who choose to stick to co-location clusters do so for an economic reason: finding means to fight their financial hardship. This may suggest a degree of complication higher than one would have thought in dealing with poor patients from a social point of view. Concretely, the majority of the public only focuses on charity programs and in-king donations, while ignoring the more sustainable - and, at the same time, more complicated - alternative which is to create suitable income-generating jobs for patient. In addition, patients are not only those who seek to ask for supports but can potentially be the donors contributing to the sustainability of those voluntary communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.