Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37368882›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2023

Impact of community-based health insurance in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Paul Eze, Stanley Ilechukwu, Lucky Osaheni Lawani

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 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. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Paul EzeDepartment of Health Policy and Administration, Penn State University, University Park, PA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7202-8676
Stanley IlechukwuDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Lucky Osaheni LawaniInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5350-7441

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo systematically evaluate the empirical evidence on the impact of community-based health insurance (CBHI) on healthcare utilization and financial risk protection in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

methodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, CNKI, PsycINFO, Scopus, WHO Global Index Medicus, and Web of Science including grey literature, Google Scholar®, and citation tracking for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the impact of CBHI schemes on healthcare utilization and financial risk protection in LMICs. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tools for RCTs and quasi/non-RCTs, respectively. We also performed a narrative synthesis of all included studies and meta-analyses of comparable studies using random-effects models. We pre-registered our study protocol on PROSPERO: CRD42022362796.

resultsWe identified 61 articles: 49 peer-reviewed publications, 10 working papers, 1 preprint, and 1 graduate dissertation covering a total of 221,568 households (1,012,542 persons) across 20 LMICs. Overall, CBHI schemes in LMICs substantially improved healthcare utilization, especially outpatient services, and improved financial risk protection in 24 out of 43 studies. Pooled estimates showed that insured households had higher odds of healthcare utilization (AOR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.04-2.47), use of outpatient health services (AOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.22-2.05), and health facility delivery (AOR = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.61-3.02), but insignificant increase in inpatient hospitalization (AOR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.74-3.14). The insured households had lower out-of-pocket health expenditure (AOR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.92-0.97), lower incidence of catastrophic health expenditure at 10% total household expenditure (AOR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.54-0.88), and 40% non-food expenditure (AOR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.54-0.96). The main limitations of our study are the limited data available for meta-analyses and high heterogeneity persisted in subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

conclusionsOur study shows that CBHI generally improves healthcare utilization but inconsistently delivers financial protection from health expenditure shocks. With pragmatic context-specific policies and operational modifications, CBHI could be a promising mechanism for achieving universal health coverage (UHC) in LMICs.

Indexed as

Community-Based Health InsuranceDeveloping CountriesDelivery of Health CareHealth ExpendituresHumansInsurance, HealthUniversal Health Insurance

Identifiers

PMID37368882
PMCPMC10298805

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.