Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29858403›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Quantifying the financial burden of households' out-of-pocket payments on medicines in India: a repeated cross-sectional analysis of National Sample Survey data, 1994-2014.

Sakthivel Selvaraj, Habib Hasan Farooqui, Anup Karan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

75 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sakthivel SelvarajPublic Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.
Habib Hasan FarooquiPublic Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3081-2929
Anup KaranPublic Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this research is to generate new evidence on financial implications of medicines out-of-pocket (OOP) payments for households. Another objective is to investigate which disease conditions contributed to a significant proportion of households' financial burden.

settingAll Indian states including union territories, 1993-2014.

designRepeated cross-sectional household surveys. DATA: Secondary data of nationwide Consumer Expenditure Surveys for the years 1993-1994, 2004-2005 and 2011-2012 and one wave of Social Consumption: Health for the year 2014 from National Sample Survey Organisation. OUTCOME MEASURES: OOP expenditure on healthcare in general and medicines in specific.

resultsTotal OOP payments and medicines OOP payments were estimated to be 6.77% (95% CI 6.70% to 6.84%) and 4.49% (95% CI 4.45% to 4.54%) of total consumption expenditure, respectively, in the year 2011-2012 which marked significant increase since 1993-1994. These proportions were 11.46% (95% CI 11.36% to 11.56%) and 7.60% (95% CI 7.54% to 7.67%) of non-food expenditure, respectively, in the same year. Total OOP payments and medicines OOP payments were catastrophic for 17.9% (95% CI 17.7% to 18.2%) and 11.2% (95% CI 11.0% to 11.4%) households, respectively, in 2011-2012 at the 10% of total consumption expenditure threshold, implying 29 million households incurred catastrophic OOP payments in the year 2011-2012. Further, medicines OOP payments pushed 3.09% (95% CI 2.99% to 3.20%), implying 38 million persons into poverty in the year 2011-2012. Among the leading cause of diseases that caused significant OOP payments are cancers, injuries, cardiovascular diseases, genitourinary conditions and mental disorders.

conclusionsPurchase of medicines constitutes the single largest component of the total OOP payments by households. Hence, strengthening government intervention in providing medicines free in public healthcare facilities has the potential to considerably reduce medicine-related spending and total OOP payments of households and reduction in OOP-induced poverty.

Indexed as

Family CharacteristicsCross-Sectional StudiesHealth ExpendituresHumansIndiaPovertySelf Reporthealth economicshealth policypublic health

Identifiers

PMID29858403
PMCPMC5988077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.