BackgroundTo assess the financial burden due to out of pocket (OOP) payments, two mutually exclusive approaches have been used: catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) and impoverishment. Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries primarily rely on OOP and are thus challenged with providing financial protection to the populations. To understand the variations in CHE and impoverishment in SSA, and the underlying determinants of CHE, a scoping review of the existing evidence was conducted.MethodsThis review is guided by Arksey and O’Malley scoping review framework. A search was conducted in several databases including PubMed, EBSCO (EconLit, PsychoInfo, CINAHL), Web of Science, Jstor and virtual libraries of the World Health Organizations (WHO) and the World Bank. The primary outcome of interest was catastrophic health expenditure/impoverishment, while the secondary outcome was the associated risk factors.ResultsThirty-four (34) studies that met the inclusion criteria were fully assessed. CHE was higher amongst West African countries and amongst patients receiving treatment for HIV/ART, TB, malaria and chronic illnesses. Risk factors associated with CHE included household economic status, type of health provider, socio-demographic characteristics of household members, type of illness, social insurance schemes, geographical location and household size/composition. The proportion of households that are impoverished has increased over time across countries and also within the countries.ConclusionThis review demonstrated that CHE/impoverishment is pervasive in SSA, and the magnitude varies across and within countries and over time. Socio-economic factors are seen to drive CHE with the poor being the most affected, and they vary across countries. This calls for intensifying health policies and financing structures in SSA, to provide equitable access to all populations especially the most poor and vulnerable. There is a need to innovate and draw lessons from the ‘informal’ social networks/schemes as they are reported to be more effective in cushioning the financial burden.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0799-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

IntroductionIt is well-known that the prevalence of chronic diseases is high among older people, especially those who are poor. Moreover, chronic diseases can result in catastrophic health expenditure. The relationship between chronic diseases and their financial burden on households is thus double-sided, as financial difficulties can give rise to, and result from, chronic diseases. Our aim was to examine the levels of catastrophic health expenditure imposed by private out-of-pocket payments among older people diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases and cancer in 15 European countries.MethodsThe SHARE dataset for individuals aged 50+ and their households, collected in 2010–2012 was used. The total number of participants included in this study was N = 51,661. The sample consisted of 43.8% male and 56.2% female participants. The average age was 67 years. We applied an instrumental variable approach for binary instrumented variables known as a treatment-effect model.ResultsWe found that being diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases was associated with catastrophic health expenditure among older people even in comparatively wealthy countries with developed risk-pooling mechanisms. When compared to the Netherlands (the country with the lowest share of out-of-pocket payments as a percentage of total health expenditure in our study), older people diagnosed with diabetes mellitus in Portugal, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Hungary were more likely to experience catastrophic health expenditure. Similar results were observed for diagnosed cardiovascular diseases. In contrast, cancer was not associated with catastrophic health expenditure.DiscussionOur study shows that older people with diagnosed chronic diseases face catastrophic health expenditure even in some of the wealthiest countries in Europe. The effect differs across chronic diseases and countries. This may be due to different socio-economic contexts, but also due to the specific characteristics of the different health systems. In view of the ageing of European populations, it will be crucial to strengthen the mechanisms for financial protection for older people with chronic diseases.

BackgroundPhysical activity on prescription schemes (PARS) are health promotion programmes that have been implemented in various countries. The aim of this study was to outline the differences in the design of PARS in different countries. This study also explored the differences in the adherence rate to PARS and the self-reported level of physical activity between PARS users in different countries.MethodA systematic literature review and meta-analyses were conducted. We searched PubMed and EBASCO in July 2015 and updated our search in September 2015. Studies that reported adherence to the programme and self-reported level of physical activity, published in the English language in a peer-reviewed journal since 2000, were included. The difference in the pooled adherence rate after finishing the PARS programme and the adherence rate before or during the PARS programme was 17% (95% CI 9% to 24%). The difference in the pooled physical activity was 0.93 unit score (95 CI −3.57 to 1.71). For the adherence rate, a meta-regression was conducted.ResultsIn total, 37 studies conducted in 11 different countries met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 31 reported the adherence rate, while the level of physical activity was reported in 17 studies. Results from meta-analyses show that PARS had an effect on the adherence rate of physical activity, while the results from the meta-regressions show that programme characteristics such as type of chronic disease and the follow-up period influenced the adherence rate.ConclusionsThe effects of PARS on adherence and self-reported physical activity were influenced by programme characteristics and also by the design of the study. Future studies on the effectiveness of PARS should use a prospective longitudinal design and combine quantitative and qualitative data. Furthermore, future evaluation studies should distinguish between evaluating the adherence rate and the self-reported physical activity among participants with different chronic diseases.

Actions should be taken to improve bedside manners of medical staff. In addition, the government should consider the involvement of private practitioners paid by the national insurance fund to create competition and decrease the need for informal payments and "connections."

Background Electronic health (eHealth) tools are increasingly being applied in health care. They are expected to improve access to health care, quality of health care, and health outcomes. Although the advantages of using these tools in health care are well described, it is unknown to what extent eHealth tools are effective when used by vulnerable population groups, such as the elderly, people with low socioeconomic status, single parents, minorities, or immigrants. Objective This study aimed to examine whether the design and implementation characteristics of eHealth tools contribute to better use of these tools among vulnerable groups. Methods In this systematic review, we assessed the design and implementation characteristics of eHealth tools that are used by vulnerable groups. In the meta-analysis, we used the adherence rate as an effect size measure. The adherence rate is defined as the number of people who are repetitive users (ie, use the eHealth tool more than once). We also performed a meta-regression analysis to examine how different design and implementation characteristics influenced the adherence rate. Results Currently, eHealth tools are continuously used by vulnerable groups but to a small extent. eHealth tools that use multimodal content (such as videos) and have the possibility for direct communication with providers show improved adherence among vulnerable groups. Conclusions eHealth tools that use multimodal content and provide the possibility for direct communication with providers have a higher adherence among vulnerable groups. However, most of the eHealth tools are not embedded within the health care system. They are usually focused on specific problems, such as diabetes or obesity. Hence, they do not provide comprehensive services for patients. This limits the use of eHealth tools as a replacement for existing health care services.

Significant differences in healthcare resources and outcomes were observed among three historical health-policy legacies in south-eastern Europe. These different routes towards common goals created a golden opportunity for these economies to learn from each other.

STUDY QUESTION What are the direct costs of assisted reproductive technology (ART), and how affordable is it for patients in low- and middle-income countries? SUMMARY ANSWER Direct medical costs paid by patients for infertility treatment are significantly higher than annual average income and GDP per capita, pointing to unaffordability and the risk of catastrophic expenditure for those in need. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Infertility treatment is largely inaccessible to many people in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our analysis shows that no study in LMICs has previously compared ART medical costs across countries in international dollar terms (US$PPP) or correlated the medical costs with economic indicators, financing mechanisms and policy regulations. Previous systematic reviews on costs have been limited to high-income countries while those in LMICs have only focussed on descriptive analyses of these costs. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), we searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, EconLit, PsycINFO, LILACS and grey literature for studies published in all languages from LMICs between 2001 and 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The primary outcome of interest was direct medical costs paid by patients for one ART cycle. To gauge ART affordability, direct medical costs were correlated with the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita or average income of respective countries. ART regulations and public financing mechanisms were analysed to provide information on the healthcare contexts in the countries. The quality of included studies was assessed using the integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Of the 4,062 studies identified, 26 studies from 17 countries met the inclusion criteria. There were wide disparities across countries in the direct medical costs paid by patients for ART ranging from USD2,109 to USD18,592. Relative ART costs and GDP per capita showed a negative correlation, with the costs in Africa and South-East Asia being on average up to 200% of the GDP per capita. Lower relative costs in the Americas and the Eastern Mediterranean regions were associated with the presence of ART regulations and government financing mechanisms. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Several included studies were not primarily designed to examine the cost of ART, and thus lacked comprehensive details of the costs. However, a sensitivity analysis showed that exclusion of studies with below the minimum quality score did not change the conclusions on the outcome of interest. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Governments in LMICs should devise appropriate ART regulatory policies and implement effective mechanisms for public financing of fertility care to improve equity in access. The findings of this review should inform advocacy for ART regulatory frameworks in LMICs and the integration of infertility treatment as an essential service under universal health coverage (UHC). STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work received funding from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER This review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020199312. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR PATIENTS? This review appraises the literature on the costs of assisted reproductive technology (ART) borne by individuals, its affordability, and the association with government financing and ART regulations, between 2001 and 2020. To assess affordability, we examined the correlation of the direct medical costs paid by patients for one ART cycle with the respective countries' Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita or average income. Based on the findings, it is concluded that there were significant inequities in access to ART, and many patients in LMICs are still unable to afford it due to prohibitive costs. Better policies and government financial mechanisms are needed to improve affordability for patients in LMICs.