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

Author:

Abou Jaoude Gerard JosephORCID,Skordis-Worrall JoleneORCID,Haghparast-Bidgoli HassanORCID

Abstract

IntroductionTo 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 analysisThis 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 Levacet 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 disseminationThe 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.

Funder

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference47 articles.

1. United Nations. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ (Accessed 19 Aug 2018).

2. World Health Organisation. Universal Health Coverage: Fact Sheet: World Health Organisation, 2017. http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/universal-health-coverage-(uhc). (Accessed 19 Aug 2018).

3. World Health Organisation. The world health report: health systems financing: the path to universal coverage. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2010.

4. World Health Organisation. Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2014.

5. Ethical priority setting for universal health coverage: challenges in deciding upon fair distribution of health services;Norheim;BMC Med,2016

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3