Variation in financial protection and its association with health expenditure indicators: an analysis of low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: An insight into variation in financial protection among countries and the underpinning factors associated with the variations observed will help to inform public health policy and practice. METHOD: Secondary datasets from Global Health Expenditure Database and World Bank Development Indicators collected between 2000 and 2016 were used. Financial protection was measured in 75 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) using the sustainable development goals framework. Funnel plot charts were used to explore the variation, and regression models were used to measure associations. RESULT: Fifty-three (67%) countries were within the 99% control limits indicating common-cause variation; 11 countries were above the upper control limit and 15 countries were below the lower control limit. In the fully adjusted model, country, spending on health relative to their economy had the strongest association with the variation in catastrophic spending. Every 1% increase in health spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP) was found to be associated with a reduction of 0.13% in the number of people that incurred catastrophic health spending. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in financial protection, as measured by the number of people that incurred catastrophic health spending, in LMICs; a proportion of this could be explained by the difference in GDP and external health expenditure.

Equity of national publicly funded health insurance schemes under the universal health coverage agenda: a systematic review of studies conducted in Africa.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of publicly funded health insurance schemes (PFHIS) is the major strategy to drive progress and achievement of universal health coverage (UHC) by 2030. We appraised evidence on the equity of insurance schemes across Africa. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published studies that assessed equity in health insurance schemes implemented under the UHC agenda in Africa. Seven databases, Web of Science, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and World Bank eLibrary, were searched; we operationalized the PROGRESS-Plus (place of residence; race/ethnicity/culture/language; occupation; gender/sex religion; education; socioeconomic status; social capital) equity framework to assess equity areas. RESULTS: Forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study, in which 90% assessed equity by socioeconomic status. Evidence showed that rural residents, those self-employed or working in the informal sector, men, those with lower educational attainment, and the poor were less likely to be covered by health insurance schemes. Broadly, the insurance schemes, especially, community-based health insurance (CBI) schemes improved utilization by disadvantaged groups, however, the same groups were less likely to benefit from health services. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on equity of PFHIS is mixed, however, CBI schemes seem to offer more equitable coverage and utilization of essential health services in Africa.

Individual and Contextual Factors Associated With Maternal and Child Health Essential Health Services Indicators: A Multilevel Analysis of Universal Health Coverage in 58 Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: Universal health coverage (UHC) is part of the global health agenda to tackle the lack of access to essential health services (EHS). This study developed and tested models to examine the individual, neighbourhood and country-level determinants associated with access to coverage of EHS under the UHC agenda in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We used datasets from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHSs) of 58 LMICs. Suboptimal and optimal access to EHS were computed using nine indicators. Descriptive and multilevel multinomial regression analyses were performed using R and STATA. RESULTS: The prevalence of suboptimal and optimal access to EHS varies across the countries, the former ranging from 5.55% to 100%, and the latter ranging from 0% to 90.36% both in Honduras and Colombia, respectively. In the fully adjusted model, children of mothers with lower educational attainment (relative risk ratio [RRR] 2.11, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.92 to 2.32) and those from poor households (RRR 1.79, 95% CrI 1.61 to 2.00) were more likely to have suboptimal access to EHS. Also, those with health insurance (RRR 0.72, 95% CrI 0.59 to 0.85) and access to media (RRR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.67) were at lesser risk of having suboptimal EHS. Similar trends, although in the opposite direction, were observed in the analysis involving optimal access. The intra-neighbourhood and intra-country correlation coefficients were estimated using the intercept component variance; 57.50%% and 27.70% of variances in suboptimal access to EHS are attributable to the neighbourhood and country-level factors. CONCLUSION: Neighbourhood-level poverty, illiteracy, and rurality modify access to EHS coverage in LMICs. Interventions aimed at achieving the 2030 UHC goals should consider integrating socioeconomic and living conditions of people.

Enabling women to access preferred methods of contraception: a rapid review and behavioural analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many pregnancies in the UK are either unplanned or ambivalent. This review aimed to (i) explore barriers and facilitators to women choosing and accessing a preferred method of contraception in the United Kingdom, and (ii) identify opportunities for behavioural interventions based on examination of interventions that are currently available nationally. METHODS: Three databases were searched, and experts contacted to identify grey literature for studies presenting barriers and facilitators to women choosing and accessing a preferred method of contraception, conducted in the UK and published between 2009 and October 2019. Information on barriers and facilitators were coded into overarching themes, which were then coded into Mechanisms of Actions (MoAs) as listed in the Theory and Techniques Tool. National interventions were identified by consulting stakeholders and coded into the Behaviour Change Wheel. The match between barriers/facilitators and intervention content was assessed using the Behaviour Change Wheel. RESULTS: We included 32 studies and identified 46 barrier and facilitator themes. The most cited MoA was Environmental Context and Resources, which primarily related to the services women had access to and care they received. Social Influences, Beliefs about Consequences (e.g., side effects) and Knowledge were also key. The behavioural analysis highlighted four priority intervention functions (Modelling, Enablement, Education and Environmental Restructuring) that can be targeted to support women to choose and access their preferred method of contraception. Relevant policy categories and behaviour change techniques are also highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights factors that influence women's choices and access to contraception and recommends opportunities that may be targeted for future interventions in order to support women to access preferred contraception. REGISTRATION: Protocol was registered with PROSPERO (an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care) in December 2019, CRD42019161156 .

Publication and related biases in health services research: a systematic review of empirical evidence.

BACKGROUND: Publication and related biases (including publication bias, time-lag bias, outcome reporting bias and p-hacking) have been well documented in clinical research, but relatively little is known about their presence and extent in health services research (HSR). This paper aims to systematically review evidence concerning publication and related bias in quantitative HSR. METHODS: Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Cochrane EPOC Review Group and several websites were searched to July 2018. Information was obtained from: (1) Methodological studies that set out to investigate publication and related biases in HSR; (2) Systematic reviews of HSR topics which examined such biases as part of the review process. Relevant information was extracted from included studies by one reviewer and checked by another. Studies were appraised according to commonly accepted scientific principles due to lack of suitable checklists. Data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: After screening 6155 citations, four methodological studies investigating publication bias in HSR and 184 systematic reviews of HSR topics (including three comparing published with unpublished evidence) were examined. Evidence suggestive of publication bias was reported in some of the methodological studies, but evidence presented was very weak, limited in both quality and scope. Reliable data on outcome reporting bias and p-hacking were scant. HSR systematic reviews in which published literature was compared with unpublished evidence found significant differences in the estimated intervention effects or association in some but not all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological research on publication and related biases in HSR is sparse. Evidence from available literature suggests that such biases may exist in HSR but their scale and impact are difficult to estimate for various reasons discussed in this paper. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016052333.

Stakeholder views on publication bias in health services research.

OBJECTIVES: While the presence of publication bias in clinical research is well documented, little is known about its role in the reporting of health services research. This paper explores stakeholder perceptions and experiences with regard to the role of publication and related biases in quantitative research relating to the quality, accessibility and organization of health services. METHODS: We present findings from semi-structured interviews with those responsible for the funding, publishing and/or conduct of quantitative health services research, primarily in the UK. Additional data collection includes interviews with health care decision makers as 'end users' of health services research, and a focus group with patient and service user representatives. The final sample comprised 24 interviews and eight focus group participants. RESULTS: Many study participants felt unable to say with any degree of certainty whether publication bias represents a significant problem in quantitative health services research. Participants drew broad contrasts between externally funded and peer reviewed research on the one hand, and end user funded quality improvement projects on the other, with the latter perceived as more vulnerable to selective publication and author over-claiming. Multiple study objectives, and a general acceptance of 'mess and noise' in the data and its interpretation was seen to reduce the importance attached to replicable estimates of effect sizes in health services research. The relative absence of external scrutiny, either from manufacturers of interventions or health system decision makers, added to this general sense of 'low stakes' of health services research. As a result, while many participants advocated study pre-registration and using protocols to pre-identify outcomes, others saw this as an unwarranted imposition. CONCLUSIONS: This study finds that incentives towards publication and related bias are likely to be present, but not to the same degree as in clinical research. In health services research, these were seen as being offset by other forms of 'novelty' bias in the reporting and publishing of research findings.

Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research: A meta-epidemiological study.

Strategies to identify and mitigate publication bias and outcome reporting bias are frequently adopted in systematic reviews of clinical interventions but it is not clear how often these are applied in systematic reviews relating to quantitative health services and delivery research (HSDR). We examined whether these biases are mentioned and/or otherwise assessed in HSDR systematic reviews, and evaluated associating factors to inform future practice. We randomly selected 200 quantitative HSDR systematic reviews published in the English language from 2007-2017 from the Health Systems Evidence database (www.healthsystemsevidence.org). We extracted data on factors that may influence whether or not authors mention and/or assess publication bias or outcome reporting bias. We found that 43% (n = 85) of the reviews mentioned publication bias and 10% (n = 19) formally assessed it. Outcome reporting bias was mentioned and assessed in 17% (n = 34) of all the systematic reviews. Insufficient number of studies, heterogeneity and lack of pre-registered protocols were the most commonly reported impediments to assessing the biases. In multivariable logistic regression models, both mentioning and formal assessment of publication bias were associated with: inclusion of a meta-analysis; being a review of intervention rather than association studies; higher journal impact factor, and; reporting the use of systematic review guidelines. Assessment of outcome reporting bias was associated with: being an intervention review; authors reporting the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and; inclusion of only controlled trials. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias are infrequently assessed in HSDR systematic reviews. This may reflect the inherent heterogeneity of HSDR evidence and different methodological approaches to synthesising the evidence, lack of awareness of such biases, limits of current tools and lack of pre-registered study protocols for assessing such biases. Strategies to help raise awareness of the biases, and methods to minimise their occurrence and mitigate their impacts on HSDR systematic reviews, are needed.

Inherited predisposition to preeclampsia: Analysis of the Aberdeen intergenerational cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the magnitude of familial risk of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension in women born of a preeclamptic pregnancy and those born of pregnancy complicated by gestational hypertension while accounting for other risk factors. METHODS: An intergenerational dataset was extracted from the Aberdeen Maternity and Neonatal Databank (AMND) which records all pregnancy and delivery details occurring in Aberdeen, Scotland since 1950. The analysis included all nulliparous women whose mothers' records at their births are also recorded in the AMND. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the risk of having preeclampsia or gestational hypertension based on maternal history of preeclampsia or gestational hypertension. RESULTS: There were 17302 nulliparous women included, of whom 1057(6.1%) had preeclampsia while 4098(23.7%) had gestational hypertension. Furthermore, 424(2.5%) and 2940(17.0%) had maternal history of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension respectively. The risk of preeclampsia was higher in women who were born of pregnancies complicated by preeclampsia (adjusted RRR 2.55 95% CI 1.87-3.47). This was higher than the risk observed in women whose mothers had gestational hypertension (adjusted RRR 1.44 95% CI 1.23-1.69). Conversely, the risk of gestational hypertension was similar in those who were born of preeclamptic pregnancies (adjusted RRR 1.37 95% CI 1.09-1.71) and those whose mothers had gestational hypertension (adjusted RRR 1.36 95% CI 1.24-1.49). CONCLUSION: There was a dose response effect in the inheritance pattern of preeclampsia with the highest risk in women born of preeclamptic pregnancies. Gestational hypertension showed similar increased risk with maternal gestational hypertension and preeclampsia.

Chronic pelvic pain in women: an epidemiological perspective.

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is common in women of reproductive age and has a significant impact on quality of life, work efficiency and healthcare utilization. CPP can be a manifestation of many different, often multifactorial conditions, and in the absence of an identified cause, the management can be particularly challenging. High quality epidemiological studies would improve the understanding of CPP and identify risk factors which may be targeted for the development of appropriate management strategies. This review focuses on what is known about the prevalence, risk factors, individual and societal burden of CPP and outlines important management strategies.