ArticlePloS one2025
Developing a pricing model for general medical consultation services among private consulting rooms in Harare, Zimbabwe.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThere are often variations around setting tariffs or prices for payment of general medical consultation services between the medical insurance industry, the medical association, and the private health care providers. Differences in these tariffs have an impact on both the public and private health care sectors. The research study aimed to develop a pricing model for consultation services and ascertain the ideal price that should be charged for those services. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn analytical cross-sectional study design was utilized to collect data through a questionnaire for the input costs of operating a surgery as well as the consultation fee charged by General Medical practitioners who participated in the study. The recruitment period for this study was from 13 September 2023, to 29 September 2023, during which 170 medical practitioners completed the online questionnaire. Eight independent variables were analyzed in the study using Stata (version 14) to build a multiple linear regression model with the capability of predicting the mean consultation fee. The variables were registration fees, rental, cost of equipment, cost of consumables, salaries, utility costs, number of patients seen and actual profit.
resultsA total of 170 General Medical Practitioners participated in the study. The variables which met the multiple linear regression assumptions that were included in the model were consumables, salaries, utilities, number of patients seen by doctor and actual profit made by the consulting room. The estimated ideal consultation fee, which was obtained using empirical data from the 170 surgeries sampled was US$23.28. Profit levels varied significantly by both suburb density (p < 0.001) and patient volume (p < 0.001), indicating the importance of geographic and operational factors in practice profitability.
conclusionThe developed model aimed to provide a transparent basis for determining consultation fees, thus helping to assure affordability, access, and financial sustainability for both practitioners and patients. However, the model did not consider the value of the training, skills, knowledge and experience of the Medical Practitioner. Therefore, further research is required to come up with a consultation fee that is affordable and sustainable for both practitioners and patients.
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.