ReviewHealth policy and planning2026
Assessing intervention effects on healthcare-related financial protection in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid evidence review.
Review in Health policy and planning, 2026. 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
Abstract
Financial protection is a key goal for universal health coverage, but globally, this indicator has been lagging, especially for low-income households. Understanding how to improve it is urgent. This rapid evidence review examined the effectiveness of interventions, which affected financial protection in health across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A systematic search of published literature identified empirical studies reporting on outcomes such as out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE), catastrophic spending, impoverishment, and care foregone for financial reasons, with data extracted and categorized using structured tools. A narrative synthesis was used to interpret the evidence. The review included 214 studies published between 1999 and 2024, covering interventions in 39 countries. About one-quarter of studies assessed equity, often revealing mixed or regressive effects. Financial protection is affected through multiple channels, but evaluations still largely focus on health-sector-specific interventions, failing to examine potentially impactful wider policies. Insurance schemes were the most studied intervention type, with mixed results. Demand-side financing, such as vouchers or cash transfers, and user fee reforms often struggled to benefit the poorest due to structural barriers and indirect costs. Provider payment reforms were more likely than other categories to show adverse effects, including unintended supplier behaviour changes that drove up OOPE and costs to the system. Less frequently evaluated interventions, such as social protection and behaviour change programmes, showed some positive effects. Whilst no single intervention consistently ensured financial protection, the evidence points to the value of interventions that act across multiple sectors and health areas. Designing reforms with an explicit objective of improving financial protection, with local context, system capacity, and equity in mind and adjusting based on continuous monitoring, can support achievement of improved and equitable financial protection.
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.