ArticleHealth policy OPEN2026
Genres and typologies of standard paediatric service public funding model provisions for speech-language pathology management: A scoping review.
Article in Health policy OPEN, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Successive Australian healthcare policies promoting privatisation have increased demand for independent speech-language pathology (SLP) services. This growth has intensified pressure on healthcare funding mechanisms and highlighted confusion in the literature between health financing systems and healthcare funding provisions at the funding model level. In response, public funding arrangements have increasingly supported access to private SLP services for Australian children and young people. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe current public funding models (PFMs) used to access standard paediatric SLP funding through Australian independent SLP providers. Method: Scoping review methodology was undertaken and incorporated search terms synonymous with funding mechanisms, population-based, block and individualised funding. Result: Iterative searching and screening of three health and two scholarly business databases unveiled eighty-six (n = 86) articles, revealing six genres of PFMs and nine associated typologies. The review identified that seven (n = 7) contemporary PFMs were used to access Australian independent SLP services. Conclusion: Health funding and health financing serve different functions within healthcare systems. Compared with the extensive literature on health financing, research on health funding remains limited. A key contribution of this scoping review was the identification of themes and the systematic classification of PFMs by genre and typology, providing a blueprint for understanding past, current, and future PFMs. Furthermore, mapping Australian independent SLP services across funding models and typologies highlighted the diversity of public funding provisions within Australia. Future research should examine how policy architects can balance increasing demand, integration of the latest scientific evidence-base, and equitable access to SLP services.
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.