4.6 Article

Identifying priorities for research on financial risk protection to achieve universal health coverage: a scoping overview of reviews

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052041

关键词

health policy; public health; international health services

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) [407149]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted a scoping overview of reviews to characterize the understanding of financial risk protection as an indicator of universal health coverage under Sustainable Development Goal 3. The main interventions identified for achieving FRP included pooling arrangements, expansion of insurance coverage, and financial incentives, while evidence gaps exist in terms of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and equity implications of efforts aimed at increasing FRP.
Objectives Financial risk protection (FRP) is an indicator of the Sustainable Development Goal 3 universal health coverage (UHC) target. We sought to characterise what is known about FRP in the UHC context and to identify evidence gaps to prioritise in future research. Design Scoping overview of reviews using the Arksey & O'Malley and Levac & Colquhoun framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. Data sources MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL-Plus and PAIS Index were systematically searched for studies published between 1 January 1995 and 20 July 2021. Eligibility criteria Records were screened by two independent reviewers in duplicate using the following criteria: (1) literature review; (2) focus on UHC achievement through FRP; (3) English or French language; (4) published after 1995 and (5) peer-reviewed. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers extracted data using a standard form and descriptive content analysis was performed to synthesise findings. Results 50 studies were included. Most studies were systematic reviews focusing on low-income and middle-income countries. Study periods spanned 1990 and 2020. While FRP was recognised as a dimension of UHC, it was rarely defined as a concept. Out-of-pocket, catastrophic and impoverishing health expenditures were most commonly used to measure FRP. Pooling arrangements, expansion of insurance coverage and financial incentives were the main interventions for achieving FRP. Evidence gaps pertained to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity implications of efforts aimed at increasing FRP. Methodological gaps related to trade-offs between single-country and multicountry analyses; lack of process evaluations; inadequate mixed-methods evidence, disaggregated by relevant characteristics; lack of comparable and standardised measurement and short follow-up periods. Conclusions This scoping overview of reviews characterised what is known about FRP as a UHC dimension and found evidence gaps related to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity implications of FRP interventions. Theory-informed mixed-methods research using high-quality, longitudinal and disaggregated data is needed to address these objectives.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据