Dataset Information

The willingness of orthopaedic trauma patients in Uganda to accept financial loans following injury.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Early access to a monetary loan may mitigate some of the socioeconomic burden associated with surgical treatment and lost wages following injury. The primary objective of this study was to determine the willingness of orthopaedic trauma patients in Uganda to accept a formal financial loan shortly after their time of injury.

Methods

A consecutive sample of adult orthopaedic trauma patients admitted to Uganda's national referral hospital was included in the survey. The primary outcome was the self-reported willingness to accept a financial loan. Secondary outcomes included the preferred loan terms, fracture treatment costs, and the factors associated with loan willingness.

Results

Of the 40 respondents (mean age, 40 years; 58% male), the median annual income was $582 United States dollars (USD) (range: $0-$6720). Around 50% reported a willingness to accept a loan with any terms. Patients requested loans with a median principal of $500 USD and a median interest rate of 5% with 12 months to pay back. Patients had received loans with a median principal of $142 USD, an interest rate of 10%, and payback of 6 months. These received loans covered a mean of 63% of the treatment costs. Patients with higher median incomes ($857 USD vs $342 USD) were more willing to accept a loan.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated a limited interest of orthopaedic trauma patients in Uganda to procure loans through formalized lending. This observed resistance must be overcome in future programs that rely on mechanisms such as conditional cash transfers or microfinancing to improve clinical and socioeconomic outcomes after injury.

SUBMITTER: O'Hara NN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7997123 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Elevated blood pressure is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and stroke but patients often discount recommended behavioral changes and prescribed medications. While effective interventions to promote adherence have been developed, cost-effectiveness from the patient's perspective, has not been well studied. The valuation of patient time and out of pocket expenses should be included while performing cost effectiveness evaluation. The Achieve BP study uses the contingent valuation method to assess willingness to accept (WTA) and willingness to pay (WTP) among patients with a history of uncontrolled blood pressure discharged from an urban emergency department and enrolled in a larger randomized controlled trial.WTA and WTP were assessed by asking patients a series of questions about time and travel costs and time value related to their study participation. A survey was conducted during the final study visit with patients to investigate the effectiveness of a kiosk-based educational intervention on blood pressure control. All study patients, regardless of study arm, received the same clinical protocol of commonly prescribed antihypertensive medication and met with research clinicians four times as part of the study procedures.Thirty-eight patients were offered the opportunity to participate in the cost-effectiveness study and all completed the survey. Statistical comparisons revealed these 38 patients were similar in representation to the entire RCT study population. All 38 (100.0%) were African-American, with an average age of 49.1 years; 55.3% were male, 21.1% were married, 78.9% had a high school or higher education, and 44.7% were working. 55.9% did not have a primary care provider and 50.0% did not have health insurance. Time price linear regression analysis was performed to estimate predictors of WTA and WTP.WTP and WTA may generate different results, and the elasticities were proportional to the estimated coefficients, with WTP about twice as responsive as WTA. An additional feature for health services research was successful piloting in a clinical setting of a brief patient-centered cost effectiveness survey.https://clinicaltrials.gov . Registration Number NCT02069015 . Registered February 19, 2014 (Retrospectively registered).

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the level of overdetection people would find acceptable in screening for breast, prostate, and bowel cancer and whether acceptability is influenced by the magnitude of the benefit from screening and the cancer specific harms from overdetection.DesignOnline survey. Women were presented with scenarios on breast and bowel cancer, men with scenarios on prostate and bowel cancer. For each particular cancer, we presented epidemiological information and described the treatment and its consequences. Secondly, we presented two different scenarios of benefit: one indicating a 10% reduction in cancer specific mortality and the second indicating a 50% reduction.SettingOnline survey of the population in the United Kingdom.ParticipantsRespondents were part of an existing panel of people who volunteer for online research and were invited by email or online marketing. We recruited 1000 respondents, representative for age and sex for the UK population.Main outcome measuresNumber of cases of overdetection people were willing to accept, ranging from 0-1000 (complete screened population) for each cancer modality and each scenario of benefit.ResultsThere was large variability between respondents in the level of overdetection they would find acceptable, with medians ranging from 113 to 313 cases of overdetection per 1000 people screened. Across all scenarios, 4-7% of respondents indicated they would accept no overdetection at all compared with 7-14% who thought that it would be acceptable for the entire screened population to be overdetected. Acceptability in screening for bowel cancer was significantly lower than for breast and prostate cancer. People aged 50 or over accepted significantly less overdetection, whereas people with higher education levels accepted more; 29% of respondents had heard of overdetection before.ConclusionsAcceptability of overdetection in cancer screening is variable. Invitations for screening should include clear information on the likelihood and consequences of overdetection to allow people to make an informed choice.