ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Litigation in access to universal health coverage for children and adolescents in Brazil.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. 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.
- Beyond Biology: Uncovering Structural and Sociocultural Predictors of Breast Cancer Incidence Worldwide.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- A responsive governance path to health equity: the role of state-led public interest litigation in China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Brazil's Unified Health System (SUS) ensures universal, equitable, and excellent quality health coverage for all. The broad right to health, supported by the Constitution, has led to excessive litigation in the public sector. This has negatively impacted the financial stability of SUS, created inequality in children and adolescents' access to healthcare, and affected communication between the healthcare system and the judiciary. The enactment of Law Number 13.655 on 25 April 2018, proposed significant changes in judicial decisions. This study aimed to investigate decision-making changes in health litigation involving children and adolescents following the implementation of the new normative model. Methods: The study is cross-sectional, analyzing 3753 national judgment documents from all State Courts of Brazil, available on their respective websites from 2014 to 2020. It compares regional legal decisions before and after the promulgation of Law Number 13.655/2018. Data tabulation, statistical analysis, textual analysis, coding, and counting of significant units in the collected documents were performed. The results of data cross-referencing are presented in tables and diagrams. Results: The majority (96.86%) of legal claims (3635 cases) received partial or total provision of what was prescribed by the physician. The Judiciary predominantly handled these cases individually. The analysis indicates that the decisions made did not adhere to the norms established in 2018. Conclusion: Regional heterogeneity in health litigation was observed, and there was no significant variability in decisions during the studied period, even after the implementation of the new normative paradigm in 2018. Technical-scientific support was undervalued by the magistrates. Prioritizing litigants undermines equity in access to Universal Health Coverage for children and adolescents.
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.