Dataset Information

Measuring financial risk protection in health benefits packages: scoping review protocol to inform allocative efficiency studies.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

To progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC), countries will need to define a health benefits package of services free at the point of use. Financial risk protection is a core component of UHC and should therefore be considered a key dimension of health benefits packages. Allocative efficiency modelling tools can support national analytical capacity to inform an evidence-based selection of services, but none are currently able to estimate financial risk protection. A review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection can facilitate their inclusion in modelling tools so that the latter can become more relevant to national decision making in light of UHC.

Methods and analysis

This protocol proposes to conduct a scoping review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection and assess their potential to inform the selection of services in a health benefits package. The proposed review will follow the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and the subsequent recommendations made by Levac et al. Several databases will be systematically searched including: (1) PubMed; (2) Scopus; (3) Web of Science and (4) Google Scholar. Grey literature will also be scanned, and the bibliography of all selected studies will be hand searched. Following the selection of studies according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, key characteristics will be collected from the studies using a data extraction tool. Key characteristics will include the type of method used, geographical region of focus and application to specific services or packages. The extracted data will then be charted, collated, reported and summarised using descriptive statistics, a thematic analysis and graphical presentations.

Ethics and dissemination

The scoping review proposed in this protocol does not require ethical approval. The final results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and shared with key stakeholders.

SUBMITTER: Abou Jaoude GJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6549617 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring financial risk protection in health benefits packages: scoping review protocol to inform allocative efficiency studies.

Abou Jaoude Gerard Joseph GJ Skordis-Worrall Jolene J Haghparast-Bidgoli Hassan H

BMJ open 20190528 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>To progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC), countries will need to define a health benefits package of services free at the point of use. Financial risk protection is a core component of UHC and should therefore be considered a key dimension of health benefits packages. Allocative efficiency modelling tools can support national analytical capacity to inform an evidence-based selection of services, but none are currently able to estimate financial risk protection. A ...[more]

PMID: 31142525

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Monitoring financial protection against catastrophic health expenditures is important to understand how health financing arrangements in a country protect its population against high costs associated with accessing health services. While catastrophic health expenditures are generally defined to be when household expenditures for health exceed a given threshold of household resources, there is no gold standard with several methods applied to define the threshold and household resources. These different approaches to constructing the indicator might give different pictures of a country's progress towards financial protection. In order for monitoring to effectively provide policy insight, it is critical to understand the sensitivity of measurement to these choices. METHODS:This paper examines the impact of varying two methodological choices by analysing household expenditure data from a sample of 47 countries. We assess sensitivity of cross-country comparisons to a range of thresholds by testing for restricted dominance. We further assess sensitivity of comparisons to different methods for defining household resources (i.e. total expenditure, non-food expenditure and non-subsistence expenditure) by conducting correlation tests of country rankings. RESULTS:We found country rankings are robust to the choice of threshold in a tenth to a quarter of comparisons within the 5-85% threshold range and this increases to half of comparisons if the threshold is restricted to 5-40%, following those commonly used in the literature. Furthermore, correlations of country rankings using different methods to define household resources were moderate to high; thus, this choice makes less difference from a measurement perspective than from an ethical perspective as different definitions of available household resources reflect varying concerns for equity. CONCLUSIONS:Interpreting comparisons from global monitoring based on a single threshold should be done with caution as these may not provide reliable insight into relative country progress. We therefore recommend financial protection against catastrophic health expenditures be measured across a range of thresholds using a catastrophic incidence curve as shown in this paper. We further recommend evaluating financial protection in relation to a country's health financing system arrangements in order to better understand the extent of protection and better inform future policy changes.

Project description:IntroductionLung cancer has the second-ranked morbidity rate and the first-ranked mortality rate worldwide. With the progression of the cancer condition and the advancement of new treatments, the corresponding medical expenses have risen sharply. Nowadays, financial toxicity has become one of the most common concerns in patients with cancer. However, by far, the full landscape of studies on financial toxicity is unclear in patients with lung cancer. Thus, this scoping review aims to summarise the degree, affecting factors, outcomes and intervention strategies of financial toxicity in patients with lung cancer.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be developed following the methodology described in the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis on scoping review protocol, which was based on Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, Levac et al's recommendations for applying this framework and Peters et al's enhancements of the framework. From the day of database building to 31 December 2021, 10 English databases will be searched in the 'Abstract' field with three key search terms: "Lung", "Cancer" and "Financial toxicity". The studies' screening and data extraction will be independently performed by two reviewers (MZ and RZ). Any disagreements between the two reviewers (MZ and RZ) will be resolved by consensus, and a third reviewer (BW) will be invited if necessary. The results will be analysed and presented using tables and figures. This scoping review will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.Ethics and disseminationAn ethical approval is not required for this scoping review protocol, nor for the scoping review. The results of this scoping review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal or presentation at conferences.RegistrationThis scoping review protocol has been registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ub45n/?view_only=bb93eb94e1434a0f8196b3b61cffcec2).

Project description:BackgroundCountries are increasingly defining health benefits packages (HBPs) as a way of progressing towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC). Resources for health are commonly constrained, so it is imperative to allocate funds as efficiently as possible. We conducted allocative efficiency analyses using the Health Interventions Prioritization tool (HIPtool) to estimate the cost and impact of potential HBPs in three countries. These analyses explore the usefulness of allocative efficiency analysis and HIPtool in particular, in contributing to priority setting discussions.Methods and findingsHIPtool is an open-access and open-source allocative efficiency modelling tool. It is preloaded with publicly available data, including data on the 218 cost-effective interventions comprising the Essential UHC package identified in the 3rd Edition of Disease Control Priorities, and global burden of disease data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. For these analyses, the data were adapted to the health systems of Armenia, Côte d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe. Local data replaced global data where possible. Optimized resource allocations were then estimated using the optimization algorithm. In Armenia, optimized spending on UHC interventions could avert 26% more disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), but even highly cost-effective interventions are not funded without an increase in the current health budget. In Côte d'Ivoire, surgical interventions, maternal and child health and health promotion interventions are scaled up under optimized spending with an estimated 22% increase in DALYs averted-mostly at the primary care level. In Zimbabwe, the estimated gain was even higher at 49% of additional DALYs averted through optimized spending.ConclusionsHIPtool applications can assist discussions around spending prioritization, HBP design and primary health care transformation. The analyses provided actionable policy recommendations regarding spending allocations across specific delivery platforms, disease programs and interventions. Resource constraints exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic increase the need for formal planning of resource allocation to maximize health benefits.

Project description:BACKGROUND:People with dementia (PwD) vary in the degree of awareness they show about their situation, both generally concerning the diagnosis and more specifically around certain aspects or objects of awareness such as awareness of memory impairment, altered daily activities or social functioning. The extent of awareness or lack of awareness has consequences for well-being of PwD and carers, impacting on rates of hospital admission, institutionalization, mood, adjustment to diagnosis, outcomes from intervention and carer burden. An accurate estimation of a person's awareness could therefore be useful in a clinical setting to support PwD and their carers in making appropriate choices for health and care decisions, and could facilitate safe management by health care professionals, e.g. in an acute care setting. There is a range of different approaches to measuring awareness reported in the dementia research literature, with varying estimates of the frequency of lack of awareness, reflecting different methodologies and populations. The majority of the methods have been developed for research purposes and may not be suitable for clinical use. There are no recent scoping or systematic reviews of the available methods. METHOD:We will conduct a scoping review of published studies that have assessed awareness in people with dementia of all types, and all degrees of severity. The systematic search will include the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, using search terms for dementia ("dement*" or "Alzheimer*" or "Pick's disease") and "awareness", "unawareness", "anosognosia", "insight", "denial", "metacognit*" or "discrepanc*" identified from pilot searches. Findings will be mapped and described according to the method used, the setting and diagnosis and the object of awareness studied if specified. Validated measures will be identified. DISCUSSION:This scoping review will provide an overview of the methods used to measure awareness in people with dementia, allowing comparison of the methods along with identification of validated measures. The methods or components will be appraised for potential clinical use, and gaps in research will be highlighted.

Project description:IntroductionNursing research competence of nursing personnel has received much attention in recent years, as nursing has developed as both an independent academic discipline and an evidence-based practiing profession. Instruments for appraising nursing research competence are important, as they can be used to assess nursing research competence of the target population, showing changes of this variable over time and measuring the effectiveness of interventions for improving nursing research competence. There is a need to map the current state of the science of the instruments for nursing research competence, and to identify well validated and reliable instruments. This paper describes a protocol for a scoping review to identify, evaluate, compare and summarise the instruments designed to measure nursing research competence.Methods and analysisThe scoping review will be conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework and Levac et al's additional recommendations for applying this framework. The scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. The protocol is registered through the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ksh43/). Eight English databases and two Chinese databases will be searched between 1 December 2020 and 31 December 2020 to retrieve manuscripts which include instrument(s) of nursing research competence. The literature screening and data extraction will be conducted by two researchers, independently. A third researcher will be involved when consensus is needed. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology will be used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies on measurement properties of the instruments, as well as the quality of all the instruments identified.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed. We will disseminate the findings through a conference focusing on nursing research competence and publication of the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

Project description:BackgroundHospitals operate under constant pressure to contain costs and improve the quality of care. The literature suggests that there is an association between health care providers' financial performance and the quality of care. On the one hand, providers that are financially more stable might have better capacity to maintain reliable systems and resources for quality improvement. On the other hand, providing better quality of care might lead to financial gains in the form of increased revenues or achieved savings and, in consequence, a higher profitability. The general objective of this scoping review is to identify and map the available evidence on the association between hospital financial performance and the quality of care. It aims to (1) provide a broad overview of the topic and (2) indicate a more precise research question for a future systematic review.MethodsThis scoping review will follow five stages: (1) defining the research question; (2) identifying relevant literature; (3) study selection; (4) data extraction; (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results; and (6) the consultation process and engagement of knowledge users. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE via PubMed, (2) EMBASE, (3) Web of Science, (4) Scopus, (5) EconLit, (6) ABI/INFORM, and (7) Business Source Premier. The reference lists of relevant papers will be visually scanned with the aim of identifying further studies of interest. Also, a gray literature search will be conducted by screening the websites of diverse organizations dealing with hospital performance and/or quality of care. The review will not apply a publication date limit and will include both quantitative and qualitative empirical studies as well as theoretical papers, technical reports, books/chapters, and thesis. The reporting will utilize the PRISMA extension for a Scoping Review checklist.DiscussionThis scoping review will provide an overview of the existing literature on the association between hospital financial performance and the quality of care. The review process will apply a rigorous methodological approach while broad inclusion criteria should assure comprehensive coverage of the available literature. The main limitation of the review is related to the general limitation of scoping reviews, i.e., the lack of a systematic quality and risk of bias assessment of included studies. In addition, the review will include only publications in English.Systematic review registrationOpen Science Framework osf.io/z25ag.

Project description:IntroductionA participatory approach to co-creating new knowledge in health research has gained significant momentum in recent decades. This is founded on the described benefits of community-based participatory research (CBPR), such as increased relevance of research for those who must act on its findings. This has prompted researchers to better understand how CBPR functions to achieve these benefits through building sustainable research partnerships. Several studies have identified 'trust' as a key mechanism to achieve sustainable partnerships, which themselves constitute social networks. Although existing literature discuss trust and CBPR, or trust and social networks, preliminary searches reveal that none link all three concepts of trust, CBPR and social networks. Thus, we present our scoping review protocol to systematically review and synthesise the literature exploring how trust is conceptualised, operationalised and measured in CBPR and social networks.Methods and analysisThis protocol follows guidelines from Levac et al (Scoping studies: advancing themethodology. Implement Sci 2010;5:69), which follow the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley. This scoping review explores several electronic databases including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and PsychINFO. Grey literature such as theses/dissertations and reports will be included. A search strategy was identified and agreed on by the team in conjunction with a research librarian. Two independent reviewers will screen articles by title and abstract, then by full text based on pre-determined exclusion/inclusion criteria. A third reviewer will arbitrate discrepancies regarding inclusions/exclusions. We plan to incorporate a thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthics is not required for this review specifically. It is a component of a larger study that received ethical approval from the University of Limerick research ethics committee (#2018_05_12_EHS). Translation of results to key domains is integrated through active collaboration of stakeholders from community, health services and academic sectors. Findings will be disseminated through academic conferences, and peer review publications targeting public and patient involvement in health research.

Dataset Information

Measuring financial risk protection in health benefits packages: scoping review protocol to inform allocative efficiency studies.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Measuring financial risk protection in health benefits packages: scoping review protocol to inform allocative efficiency studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets