ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Universal health coverage (UHC) is an emerging priority of health systems worldwide and central to Sustainable Development Goal 3 (target 3.8). Critical to the achievement of UHC, is quality of care. However, current evidence suggests that quality of care is suboptimal, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The primary objective of this scoping review was to summarize the existing conceptual and empirical literature on quality of care within the context of UHC and identify knowledge gaps. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework and further elaborated by Levac et al. and applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL-Plus, PAIS Index, ProQuest and PsycINFO for reviews published between 1 January 1995 and 27 September 2021. Reviews were eligible for inclusion if the article had a central focus on UHC and discussed quality of care. We did not apply any country-based restrictions. All screening, data extraction and analyses were completed by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of the 4128 database results, we included 45 studies that met the eligibility criteria, spanning multiple geographic regions. We synthesized and analysed our findings according to Kruk et al.'s conceptual framework for high-quality systems, including foundations, processes of care and quality impacts. Discussions of governance in relation to quality of care were discussed in a high number of studies. Studies that explored the efficiency of health systems and services were also highly represented in the included reviews. In contrast, we found that limited information was reported on health outcomes in relation to quality of care within the context of UHC. In addition, there was a global lack of evidence on measures of quality of care related to UHC, particularly country-specific measures and measures related to equity. CONCLUSION: There is growing evidence on the relationship between quality of care and UHC, especially related to the governance and efficiency of healthcare services and systems. However, several knowledge gaps remain, particularly related to monitoring and evaluation, including of equity. Further research, evaluation and monitoring frameworks are required to strengthen the existing evidence base to improve UHC.
Subject(s)
Health Services , Universal Health Insurance , Humans , Quality of Health CareABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Financial risk protection (FRP) is an indicator of the Sustainable Development Goal 3 universal health coverage (UHC) target. We sought to characterise what is known about FRP in the UHC context and to identify evidence gaps to prioritise in future research. DESIGN: Scoping overview of reviews using the Arksey & O'Malley and Levac & Colquhoun framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL-Plus and PAIS Index were systematically searched for studies published between 1 January 1995 and 20 July 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Records were screened by two independent reviewers in duplicate using the following criteria: (1) literature review; (2) focus on UHC achievement through FRP; (3) English or French language; (4) published after 1995 and (5) peer-reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers extracted data using a standard form and descriptive content analysis was performed to synthesise findings. RESULTS: 50 studies were included. Most studies were systematic reviews focusing on low-income and middle-income countries. Study periods spanned 1990 and 2020. While FRP was recognised as a dimension of UHC, it was rarely defined as a concept. Out-of-pocket, catastrophic and impoverishing health expenditures were most commonly used to measure FRP. Pooling arrangements, expansion of insurance coverage and financial incentives were the main interventions for achieving FRP. Evidence gaps pertained to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity implications of efforts aimed at increasing FRP. Methodological gaps related to trade-offs between single-country and multicountry analyses; lack of process evaluations; inadequate mixed-methods evidence, disaggregated by relevant characteristics; lack of comparable and standardised measurement and short follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping overview of reviews characterised what is known about FRP as a UHC dimension and found evidence gaps related to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity implications of FRP interventions. Theory-informed mixed-methods research using high-quality, longitudinal and disaggregated data is needed to address these objectives.
