SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2022
What Policy Approaches Were Effective in Reducing Catastrophic Health Expenditure? A Systematic Review of Studies from Multiple Countries.
Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Which indicator should be used? A comparison between the incidence and intensity of catastrophic health expenditure: using difference-in-difference analysis.Health economics review · 2022Article
- Article
- How public and private health insurance coverage mitigates catastrophic health expenditures in Republic of Korea.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Does Elderly Chronic Disease Hinder the Sustainability of Borderline Poor Families' Wellbeing: An Investigation From Catastrophic Health Expenditure in China.International journal of public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe United Nations set a goal for universal health coverage in all countries by 2030 and selected the catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) indicator as an assessment tool for this goal. Many countries have strived to reduce household CHE. However, no study has compared countries whose policies have had a remarkable effect on decreasing CHE. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to find appropriate methods for measuring CHE that can help us to analyze the impact of health policies and identify countries whose health policies are most effective in reducing CHE.
methodPubMed and Web of Science were searched. Studies that measured the incidence or intensity of CHE in multiple years were included. Two independent reviewers screened the literature, extracted the data, and analyzed the studies selected. Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. We classified the selected research papers to random sampling and quasi-experimental studies.
resultsWe graphically presented the results of CHE incidence and intensity rates reported in the collected papers as a time series data set. Since most studies did not use sample weights, it was not easy to confirm whether the time series changes of CHE are significant. Therefore, we could find only two countries that had policy effects. Both countries established policies that focus on the poor.
conclusionThere are so many studies that analyze CHE, but policies that are effective in reducing CHE are unknown. This study uses a systematic literature review methodology to determine effective policies by comparing CHE time series trends among countries. As a policy implication, it was found that because CHE is defined as the ratio of the ability to pay to medical expenses, a policy of differential medical expenses that is based on income level is effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35285001What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.