Impact of cash transfer programs on healthcare utilization and catastrophic health expenditures in rural Zambia: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Frontiers in health services Pub Date : 2024-04-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frhs.2024.1254195
Amani Thomas Mori, Mweetwa Mudenda, Bjarne Robberstad, Kjell Arne Johansson, Linda Kampata, Patrick Musonda, Ingvild Sandoy
{"title":"Impact of cash transfer programs on healthcare utilization and catastrophic health expenditures in rural Zambia: a cluster randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Amani Thomas Mori, Mweetwa Mudenda, Bjarne Robberstad, Kjell Arne Johansson, Linda Kampata, Patrick Musonda, Ingvild Sandoy","doi":"10.3389/frhs.2024.1254195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nearly 100 million people are pushed into poverty every year due to catastrophic health expenditures (CHE). We evaluated the impact of cash support programs on healthcare utilization and CHE among households participating in a cluster-randomized controlled trial focusing on adolescent childbearing in rural Zambia.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>The trial recruited adolescent girls from 157 rural schools in 12 districts enrolled in grade 7 in 2016 and consisted of control, economic support, and economic support plus community dialogue arms. Economic support included 3 USD/month for the girls, 35 USD/year for their guardians, and up to 150 USD/year for school fees. Interviews were conducted with 3,870 guardians representing 4,110 girls, 1.5-2 years after the intervention period started. Utilization was defined as visits to formal health facilities, and CHE was health payments exceeding 10% of total household expenditures. The degree of inequality was measured using the Concentration Index. In the control arm, 26.1% of the households utilized inpatient care in the previous year compared to 26.7% in the economic arm (RR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.9-1.2, <i>p</i> = 0.815) and 27.7% in the combined arm (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.9-1.3, <i>p</i> = 0.586). Utilization of outpatient care in the previous 4 weeks was 40.7% in the control arm, 41.3% in the economic support (RR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.8-1.3, <i>p</i> = 0.805), and 42.9% in the combined arm (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.8-1.3, <i>p</i> = 0.378). About 10.4% of the households in the control arm experienced CHE compared to 11.6% in the economic (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.8-1.5, <i>p</i> = 0.468) and 12.1% in the combined arm (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.8-1.5, <i>p</i> = 0.468). Utilization of outpatient care and the risk of CHE was relatively higher among the least poor than the poorest households, however, the degree of inequality was relatively smaller in the intervention arms than in the control arm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Economic support alone and in combination with community dialogue aiming to reduce early childbearing did not appear to have a substantial impact on healthcare utilization and CHE in rural Zambia. However, although cash transfer did not significantly improve healthcare utilization, it reduced the degree of inequality in outpatient healthcare utilization and CHE across wealth groups.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02709967, ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier (NCT02709967).</p>","PeriodicalId":73088,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in health services","volume":"4 ","pages":"1254195"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11089190/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in health services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2024.1254195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Nearly 100 million people are pushed into poverty every year due to catastrophic health expenditures (CHE). We evaluated the impact of cash support programs on healthcare utilization and CHE among households participating in a cluster-randomized controlled trial focusing on adolescent childbearing in rural Zambia.

Methods and findings: The trial recruited adolescent girls from 157 rural schools in 12 districts enrolled in grade 7 in 2016 and consisted of control, economic support, and economic support plus community dialogue arms. Economic support included 3 USD/month for the girls, 35 USD/year for their guardians, and up to 150 USD/year for school fees. Interviews were conducted with 3,870 guardians representing 4,110 girls, 1.5-2 years after the intervention period started. Utilization was defined as visits to formal health facilities, and CHE was health payments exceeding 10% of total household expenditures. The degree of inequality was measured using the Concentration Index. In the control arm, 26.1% of the households utilized inpatient care in the previous year compared to 26.7% in the economic arm (RR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.9-1.2, p = 0.815) and 27.7% in the combined arm (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.9-1.3, p = 0.586). Utilization of outpatient care in the previous 4 weeks was 40.7% in the control arm, 41.3% in the economic support (RR = 1.0; 95% CI: 0.8-1.3, p = 0.805), and 42.9% in the combined arm (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.8-1.3, p = 0.378). About 10.4% of the households in the control arm experienced CHE compared to 11.6% in the economic (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.8-1.5, p = 0.468) and 12.1% in the combined arm (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.8-1.5, p = 0.468). Utilization of outpatient care and the risk of CHE was relatively higher among the least poor than the poorest households, however, the degree of inequality was relatively smaller in the intervention arms than in the control arm.

Conclusions: Economic support alone and in combination with community dialogue aiming to reduce early childbearing did not appear to have a substantial impact on healthcare utilization and CHE in rural Zambia. However, although cash transfer did not significantly improve healthcare utilization, it reduced the degree of inequality in outpatient healthcare utilization and CHE across wealth groups.

Trial registration: https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02709967, ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier (NCT02709967).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
现金转移项目对赞比亚农村地区医疗利用率和灾难性医疗支出的影响:分组随机对照试验。
背景:每年有近一亿人因灾难性医疗支出(CHE)而陷入贫困。我们评估了现金支持项目对赞比亚农村参与群组随机对照试验的家庭的医疗保健利用率和灾难性医疗支出的影响:该试验招募了2016年在12个地区的157所农村学校就读七年级的少女,包括对照组、经济支持组和经济支持加社区对话组。经济支持包括每月向女孩发放 3 美元,每年向其监护人发放 35 美元,以及每年最高 150 美元的学费。在干预期开始 1.5-2 年后,对代表 4 110 名女童的 3 870 名监护人进行了访谈。使用是指到正规医疗机构就诊,CHE 是指医疗费用超过家庭总支出的 10%。不平等程度用集中指数来衡量。在对照组中,26.1%的家庭在上一年使用了住院治疗,而在经济组中,这一比例为 26.7%(RR = 1.0;95% CI:0.9-1.2,p = 0.815),在综合组中,这一比例为 27.7%(RR = 1.1;95% CI:0.9-1.3,p = 0.586)。对照组在过去 4 周内的门诊就诊率为 40.7%,经济支持组为 41.3%(RR = 1.0;95% CI:0.8-1.3,p = 0.805),综合组为 42.9%(RR = 1.1;95% CI:0.8-1.3,p = 0.378)。对照组中约有 10.4% 的家庭经历过 CHE,而经济组为 11.6%(RR = 1.1;95% CI:0.8-1.5,p = 0.468),综合组为 12.1%(RR = 1.1;95% CI:0.8-1.5,p = 0.468)。与最贫困家庭相比,最不贫困家庭的门诊护理使用率和CHE风险相对较高,但干预组的不平等程度相对小于对照组:结论:在赞比亚农村地区,单独的经济支持以及与旨在减少早育的社区对话相结合,似乎并没有对医疗保健的利用率和 CHE 产生实质性影响。然而,尽管现金转移并未显著提高医疗保健利用率,但却降低了不同财富群体在门诊医疗保健利用率和CHE方面的不平等程度。试验注册:https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02709967,ClinicalTrials.gov,标识符(NCT02709967)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Implementation of a mobile prosthetic and orthotic care program in the VA; a qualitative study of implementation challenges and associated strategies for improvement. Creating demand for unmet needs: Agile Storytelling. Editorial: Digital health applications: acceptance, benefit assessment, and costs from the perspective of patients and medical professionals. Reported roles of care partners in a specialized weaning centre-perspectives of patients, care partners, and health care providers. Longitudinal analysis of culture of patient safety survey results in surgical departments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1