Table 2.
Relationship between health insurance status and other socio‐economic characteristics of controls at hospitals, Kigali, Rwanda, 18 July 2012 to 8 May 2013
| Socioeconomic characteristics | Health insurance status | p‐value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not insured | Community | State and other insurancesa | ||
| Maternal residence | ||||
| Urban | 93 (13/14) | 98 (365/373) | 95 (77/81) | 0.23 |
| Rural | 7.0 (1/14) | 2.0 (8/373) | 5.0 (4/81) | |
| Maternal education | ||||
| Secondary or higher | 62 (8/13) | 27 (99/370) | 95 (77/81) | 0.01 |
| Primary | 23 (3/13) | 68 (252/370) | 5.0 (4/81) | |
| No formal education | 15 (2/13) | 5.0 (19/370) | 0.0 (0/81) | |
| Household wealthb | ||||
| Richer | 64 (9/14) | 31 (118/373) | 70 (57/81) | 0.01 |
| Middle | 7.0 (1/14) | 35 (129/373) | 19 (15/81) | |
| Poorer | 29 (4/14) | 34 (126/373) | 11 (9/81) | |
Data are percent (n/n).
a
Other insurances: military medical and private insurances.
b
Household wealth was assessed using an asset index developed through principal component analysis 18, which provided individual scores for households’ possessions and facilities reported by mothers. The scores were divided into quintiles. Two highest quintiles were considered as ‘richer’, the middle quintile as ‘middle’ and the two lowest quintiles as ‘poorer’.