1976
DOI: 10.2307/3424024
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Equity in Health Services; Empirical Analysis in Social Policy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

1979
1979
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Andersen's behavioral model asserts that a population's health services use is determined by predisposing, enabling and need based factors [8,17,20]. 'Predisposing' factors describe a patient's propensity to use healthcare services and include social structure, demographics, attitudes, and beliefs about disease and healthcare services [8].…”
Section: Healthcare Barrier Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Andersen's behavioral model asserts that a population's health services use is determined by predisposing, enabling and need based factors [8,17,20]. 'Predisposing' factors describe a patient's propensity to use healthcare services and include social structure, demographics, attitudes, and beliefs about disease and healthcare services [8].…”
Section: Healthcare Barrier Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the 1970s, Andersen's Phase 2 model was developed with contributions of his collaborators (Aday & Andersen, 1974;Andersen, Kravits, & Anderson, 1975;Andersen & Newman, 1973;Andersen, Smedby, & Anderson, 1970) at the Center for Health Administration Studies, the University of Chicago. This revised model juxtaposes the three categories of determinants in the initial model and adds a new category of determinants called health care system, which comprises health policy, resources, and organization.…”
Section: Andersen's Health Behavior Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One study evaluated the impact of an educational booklet on women’s knowledge and willingness to participate in randomized breast cancer clinical trials (RCTs), and found that the booklet was ineffective in improving trial enrollment [20]. The second study randomly assigned member institutions of a large cancer cooperative group to standard information vs. an educational intervention which included standard information plus two seminars and educational materials directed at trial investigators through the internet, and no significant difference in enrollment between the study arms [22, 24] was found. A third study [23] of 126 lung cancer patients, randomized to receive an educational video (the same one used in current study) vs. standard care, found a higher enrollment rate in the intervention compared to standard care arm (17.5% vs. 11.1%; P = 0.308) although the differences were not statistically significant.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%