Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(6)
Group 3 (mostly men from small households and low household income) is the least tolerant group towards informal payments and it is least likely to accept to pay informally for health care services as well.
This perception might create a motivation for health care consumers to pay informally for health care services in order to obtain better care.
Patients' motives to pay informally to medical staff in hospitals are implicitly linked to patients' maximum willingness to pay informally for better quality and access to services.
On the other hand, patients pay on average 43% less that the maximum that they are willing to pay informally (for the negative error term, the deviance is calculated 1 − 0.57 = 43%).
However, nuclear households are more likely to pay informally for their members (both in outpatient and inpatient care) and at the same time pay higher amounts for household members in both services.
Respondents in Group 1 are less likely to refuse to pay if a physician or medical staff ask them to pay informally for a medical service (43% would not refuse to pay) compared to Groups 2 and 3 (21% and 17% respectively).
Similar(54)
On the other hand, paying informally for children is less likely than paying for household heads.
The lower level of significance for other categories presents evidence for the homogenous amounts paid informally for illnesses and diseases.
According to the results of a previous study, in 2007, 9% of the patients paid informally for their last visit to a GP (€2 on average), 14% paid informally for specialist care (€35 on average), and 50% paid informally for hospitalization (€58 on average) [ 17].
Those who paid informally for hospitalization during the last 12 months are also less likely to belong to Group 3 (the probability decreases by 16% points).
Results show that in inpatient care nuclear households and extended households differ significantly in the amount paid informally for spouses (as compared to the household head and children).
More suggestions(4)
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com