印度灾难性医疗支出的衡量:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Umenthala Srikanth Reddy
{"title":"印度灾难性医疗支出的衡量:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Umenthala Srikanth Reddy","doi":"10.1007/s40258-024-00885-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The escalating burden of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) poses a significant threat to individuals and households in India, where out-of-pocket expenditure (OOP) constitutes a substantial portion of healthcare financing. With rising OOP in India, a proper measurement to track and monitor CHE due to health expenditure is of utmost important. This study focuses on synthesizing findings, understanding measurement variations, and estimating the pooled incidence of CHE by health services, reported diseases, and survey types.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a thorough search strategy was employed across multiple databases, between 2010 and 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed observational or interventional studies reporting CHE incidence, while exclusion criteria screened out studies with unclear definitions, pharmacy revenue-based spending, or non-representative health facility surveys. A meta-analysis, utilizing a random-effects model, assessed the pooled CHE incidence. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 501 initially relevant articles, 36 studies met inclusion criteria. The review identified significant variations in CHE measurements, with incidence ranging from 5.1% to 69.9%. Meta-analysis indicated the estimated incidence of CHE at a 10% threshold is 0.30 [0.25-0.35], indicating a significant prevalence of financial hardship due to health expenses. The pooled incidence is estimated by considering different sub-groups. No statistical differences were found between inpatient and outpatient CHE. However, disease-specific estimates were significantly higher (52%) compared to combined diseases (21%). Notably, surveys focusing on health reported higher CHE (33%) than consumption surveys (14%).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The study highlights the intricate challenges in measuring CHE, emphasizing variations in recall periods, components considered in out-of-pocket expenditure, and diverse methods for defining capacity to pay. Notably, the findings underscore the need for standardized definitions and measurements across studies. The lack of uniformity in reporting exacerbates the challenge of comparing and comprehensively understanding the financial burden on households.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measurement of Catastrophic Health Expenditure in India: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Umenthala Srikanth Reddy\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40258-024-00885-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The escalating burden of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) poses a significant threat to individuals and households in India, where out-of-pocket expenditure (OOP) constitutes a substantial portion of healthcare financing. With rising OOP in India, a proper measurement to track and monitor CHE due to health expenditure is of utmost important. This study focuses on synthesizing findings, understanding measurement variations, and estimating the pooled incidence of CHE by health services, reported diseases, and survey types.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a thorough search strategy was employed across multiple databases, between 2010 and 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed observational or interventional studies reporting CHE incidence, while exclusion criteria screened out studies with unclear definitions, pharmacy revenue-based spending, or non-representative health facility surveys. A meta-analysis, utilizing a random-effects model, assessed the pooled CHE incidence. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 501 initially relevant articles, 36 studies met inclusion criteria. The review identified significant variations in CHE measurements, with incidence ranging from 5.1% to 69.9%. Meta-analysis indicated the estimated incidence of CHE at a 10% threshold is 0.30 [0.25-0.35], indicating a significant prevalence of financial hardship due to health expenses. The pooled incidence is estimated by considering different sub-groups. No statistical differences were found between inpatient and outpatient CHE. However, disease-specific estimates were significantly higher (52%) compared to combined diseases (21%). Notably, surveys focusing on health reported higher CHE (33%) than consumption surveys (14%).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The study highlights the intricate challenges in measuring CHE, emphasizing variations in recall periods, components considered in out-of-pocket expenditure, and diverse methods for defining capacity to pay. Notably, the findings underscore the need for standardized definitions and measurements across studies. The lack of uniformity in reporting exacerbates the challenge of comparing and comprehensively understanding the financial burden on households.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-024-00885-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-024-00885-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:灾难性医疗支出(CHE)的负担不断加重,对印度的个人和家庭构成了重大威胁,其中自付支出(OOP)占医疗筹资的很大一部分。随着印度自付支出的增加,对因医疗支出导致的灾难性医疗支出进行适当的跟踪和监测至关重要。本研究的重点是综合研究结果,了解测量差异,并按医疗服务、报告疾病和调查类型估算CHE的总体发生率:方法:根据 PRISMA(系统综述和元分析首选报告项目)指南,在 2010 年至 2023 年期间对多个数据库采用了全面的检索策略。纳入标准包括报告CHE发病率的观察性或干预性研究,而排除标准则筛选出定义不明确、基于药房收入的支出或非代表性医疗机构调查的研究。利用随机效应模型进行的荟萃分析评估了汇总的CHE发病率。为探讨异质性,还进行了敏感性分析和亚组分析:在 501 篇初步相关的文章中,有 36 项研究符合纳入标准。综述发现,CHE 的测量结果差异很大,发病率从 5.1% 到 69.9% 不等。Meta 分析表明,以 10% 为临界值,CHE 的估计发生率为 0.30 [0.25-0.35],这表明因医疗费用造成的经济困难非常普遍。考虑到不同的分组,对汇总的发病率进行了估算。住院病人和门诊病人之间没有统计学差异。然而,与综合疾病(21%)相比,特定疾病的估计值明显更高(52%)。值得注意的是,以健康为重点的调查报告的 CHE 值(33%)高于消费调查报告的 CHE 值(14%):讨论:本研究强调了测量 CHE 所面临的复杂挑战,强调了回忆期、自付支出中考虑的组成部分以及定义支付能力的不同方法的差异。值得注意的是,研究结果强调了在各项研究中采用标准化定义和测量方法的必要性。报告缺乏统一性加剧了比较和全面了解家庭经济负担的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Measurement of Catastrophic Health Expenditure in India: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Measurement of Catastrophic Health Expenditure in India: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: The escalating burden of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) poses a significant threat to individuals and households in India, where out-of-pocket expenditure (OOP) constitutes a substantial portion of healthcare financing. With rising OOP in India, a proper measurement to track and monitor CHE due to health expenditure is of utmost important. This study focuses on synthesizing findings, understanding measurement variations, and estimating the pooled incidence of CHE by health services, reported diseases, and survey types.

Method: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a thorough search strategy was employed across multiple databases, between 2010 and 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed observational or interventional studies reporting CHE incidence, while exclusion criteria screened out studies with unclear definitions, pharmacy revenue-based spending, or non-representative health facility surveys. A meta-analysis, utilizing a random-effects model, assessed the pooled CHE incidence. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore heterogeneity.

Results: Out of 501 initially relevant articles, 36 studies met inclusion criteria. The review identified significant variations in CHE measurements, with incidence ranging from 5.1% to 69.9%. Meta-analysis indicated the estimated incidence of CHE at a 10% threshold is 0.30 [0.25-0.35], indicating a significant prevalence of financial hardship due to health expenses. The pooled incidence is estimated by considering different sub-groups. No statistical differences were found between inpatient and outpatient CHE. However, disease-specific estimates were significantly higher (52%) compared to combined diseases (21%). Notably, surveys focusing on health reported higher CHE (33%) than consumption surveys (14%).

Discussion: The study highlights the intricate challenges in measuring CHE, emphasizing variations in recall periods, components considered in out-of-pocket expenditure, and diverse methods for defining capacity to pay. Notably, the findings underscore the need for standardized definitions and measurements across studies. The lack of uniformity in reporting exacerbates the challenge of comparing and comprehensively understanding the financial burden on households.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信