ArticleHealth policy OPEN2020
An empirical evaluation of the performance of financial protection indicators for UHC monitoring: Evidence from Burkina Faso.
Article in Health policy OPEN, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The discrepancy between objective and subjective assessments of catastrophic health expenditure: evidence from China.Health policy and planning · 2025Article
- The financial burden of noncommunicable diseases from out-of-pocket expenditure in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review.Health promotion international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) has been recognized as one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and includes both ensuring access to health services and providing financial protection (FP) against using these services. Currently, progress towards achieving the FP component of UHC is assessed using the catastrophic health expenditure budget share indicator, which estimates the proportion of the population with health expenditures exceeding 10% of total income or consumption. Other indicators exist, however, and are widely used in the literature, yet few studies have compared the usefulness of these indicators for UHC monitoring. Using panel data from Burkina Faso, this paper seeks to evaluate the performance of common FP indicators based on three properties: (1) their ability to identify those most at risk of financial hardship (i.e. the poor), (2) their ability to detect households with health shocks, and (3) their sensitivity to seasonal variation. Our results indicate that, while some indicators perform better in certain conditions than others, none are without limitation. Indeed, despite being the best able to differentiate households who have experienced a health shock, the official SDG indicator performs the worst at identifying the poorest group of the population and is the most sensitive to seasonal variation. As such, more research is needed in order to improve the measurement of FP such that progress towards achieving UHC can be accurately monitored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.