In the published article, there was an error in the Results section of the Abstract. This error occurred when we compared the willingness of teachers and health professionals to pay for social health insurance, without considering the proportions (3.22:0.42) of the odds ratios of the two groups' willingness to pay.
A correction has been made to the Abstract, Results. This sentence previously stated:
“Professionally, teachers were 3.22 times more likely to pay for the scheme (OR = 3.22; 95% CI: 1.80–5.76) than health professionals.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“Professionally, teachers were 7.67 times more likely to pay for the scheme (OR = 3.22; 95% CI: 1.80–5.76) than health professionals (OR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.19–0.93).”
In the published article, there was an error in the Results section, “Results of Quantitative Synthesis”, paragraph 3. The error occurred for the same reason stated above in the previous correction.
A correction has been made to Results, “Results of Quantitative Synthesis”, paragraph 3. This sentence previously stated:
“Thus, as shown in Figure 5, regarding the sub-group analysis by profession, teachers were 3.22 times more likely to pay for SHI (OR = 3.22; 95% CI: 1.80–5.76) than health professionals.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“Thus, as shown in Figure 5, regarding the sub-group analysis by profession, teachers were 7.67 times more likely to pay for SHI (OR = 3.22; 95% CI: 1.80–5.76) than health professionals (OR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.19–0.93).”
For clarity, the sentence: “However, the WTP of health professionals to the scheme was 58% less likely (OR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.19–0.93) than that of teachers”, which is the last sentence in paragraph 3 of the Results section, subsection “Results of Quantitative Synthesis”, has been removed.
In the published article, there was an error in the Discussion section, subsection “Limitations”. This was a typographical error.
A correction has been made to Discussion, “Limitations”. The sentence previously stated:
“The direction of association between the dependent variable (WTP for SHI) and the dependent variables was not estimated due to the variability of the reports of the included studies.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“The direction of association between the dependent variable (WTP for SHI) and the independent variables was not estimated due to the variability of the reports of the included studies.”
In the published article, there was an error in Table 2 as published. Under the column “Statistical Method”, the abbreviations “M-H” in each row should be corrected as “IV” as they appear in the pooled result.
Table 2.
Pooled result of the meta-analysis by region.
| Subgroup | Studies | Participants | Events | Percent | Statistical method | Effect estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amhara | 5 | 2,796 | 1,149 | 41.10 | Odds ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.72 [0.33, 1.58] |
| Tigray | 3 | 1,620 | 809 | 49.94 | Odds ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.40 [0.43, 4.58] |
| Addis Ababa | 6 | 2,403 | 980 | 40.78 | Odds ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.72 [0.30, 1.73] |
| SNNPR | 2 | 1,020 | 286 | 28.04 | Odds ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.43 [0.01, 18.06] |
| Oromia | 1 | 275 | 76 | 27.64 | Odds ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.38 [0.29, 0.50] |
| Harar | 1 | 272 | 243 | 89.34 | Odds ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 8.38 [5.71, 12.31] |
| Pooled result | 18 | 8,386 | 3,543 | 42.25 | Odds ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.84 [0.52, 1.36] |
The corrected Table 2 and its caption appear below:
The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.