Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32333114›Full record

ReviewHealth economics review2020

The impact of social, national and community-based health insurance on health care utilization for mental, neurological and substance-use disorders in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Sumaiyah Docrat, Donela Besada, Susan Cleary, Crick Lund

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health economics review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Real-world comprehensive care of people living with schizophrenia: recommendations across different settings and clinical stages.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sumaiyah DocratAlan J. Flisher Centre for Public Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, 46 Sawkins Road, Rondebosch, Cape Town, Western Cape, 7700, South Africa. s.docrat@uct.ac.za.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3177-7157
Donela BesadaHealth Systems Research Unit, South Africa Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.
Susan ClearyHealth Economics Unit, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Crick LundAlan J. Flisher Centre for Public Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, 46 Sawkins Road, Rondebosch, Cape Town, Western Cape, 7700, South Africa.
University of Cape Town · ZASouth African Medical Research Council · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhilst several systematic reviews conducted in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) have revealed that coverage under social (SHI), national (NHI) and community-based (CBHI) health insurance has led to increased utilization of health care services, it remains unknown whether, and what aspects of, these shifts in financing result in improvements to mental health care utilization. The main aim of this review was to examine the impact of SHI, NHI and CBHI enrollment on mental health care utilization in LMICs.

methodsSystematic searches were performed in nine databases of peer-reviewed journal articles: Pubmed, Scopus, SciELO via Web of Science, Africa Wide, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Academic Search Premier, Health Source Nursing Academic and EconLit for studies published before October 2018. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool for quantitative studies. The systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO;2018; CRD42018111576).

resultsEighteen studies were included in the review. Despite some heterogeneity across countries, the results demonstrated that enrollment in SHI, CBHI and NHI schemes increased utilization of mental health care. This was consistent for the length of inpatient admissions, number of hospitalizations, outpatient use of rehabilitation services, having ever received treatment for diagnosed schizophrenia and depression, compliance with drug therapies and the prescriptions of more favorable medications and therapies, when compared to the uninsured. The majority of included studies did not describe the insurance schemes and their organizational details at length, with limited discussion of the links between these features and the outcomes. Given the complexity of mental health service utilization in these diverse contexts, it was difficult to draw overall judgements on whether the impact of insurance enrollment was positive or negative for mental health care outcomes.

conclusionsStudies that explore the impact of SHI, NHI and CBHI enrollment on mental health care utilization are limited both in number and scope. Despite the fact that many LMICs have been hailed for financing reforms towards universal health coverage, evidence on the positive impact of the reforms on mental health care utilization is only available for a small sub-set of these countries.

Indexed as

Community-based health insuranceDeveloping countriesHealth care utilizationHealth financingMandatory health insuranceMental healthMental health careMental health care utilizationNational health insuranceSocial health insurance

Identifiers

PMID32333114
PMCPMC7181535
OpenAlexW3018965554

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.