"They are the most significant population group in Iran [until the fourth generation, the 24 million Iranians under 16, comes of age], and wherever this generation decides to go is where Iran will go in the next decade".
Both comments by DK are not based on his intuition, but are the results of experiments done with a statistically significant population group.
Similarly, the variable timing is significant for both population groups, but for the low-skilled only indirectly through its interaction with the overall expenditure in ALMPs.
Finally, the policy cluster is significant for both population groups, but while it appears to boost participation of the low skilled, it seems to be detrimental for the participation of the overall group.
Moreover, the effect of policy continuity is significant for both population groups and has a negative effect as well, implying that a disruption of policy continuity is associated with an increase on the unemployment rate.
Therefore, further research into how the barriers to access are being overcome should be conducted in order to determine how the Roma are accessing health services and why effective coverage and utilization show no statistically significant difference across population groups when the differences in the quality of access is so clear.
For example, at K = 9 the majority of variation (94.32%) is among groups, although 0.03% of variation at the level of among populations within groups still represents highly significant population structuring in the remaining population groups (P < 0.001).
In contrast, significant differences between the population groups were observed at the hemispheric, lobar, and regional levels (all P < 0.05).
Wright's F-statistics also indicate significant population differentiation within this group (Additional file 1; FST>0.11 between SCJSJ and L/R), suggesting local isolation of geographical populations over a sufficiently long period of time.
