↓ Skip to main content

Does cost sharing do more harm or more good? - a systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Does cost sharing do more harm or more good? - a systematic literature review
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3624-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katarzyna Kolasa, Marta Kowalczyk

Abstract

There are positive and negative consequences of the implementation of out of pocket (OOP) payments as a source of the healthcare financing. On the one hand, OOP burden increases awareness of treatment costs and limits unnecessary use of healthcare services. On the other hand, it may prevent the sick from accessing needed care. Consequently there are several aspects that ought to be taken into consideration while defining the optimal structure of OOP payments. The objective of this study was twofold. Firstly, it was to understand what actions are taken to decrease the OOP burden. Secondly, it was to address the question whether the implementation of any form of formal OOP payments may impact negatively upon fairness in financial contribution. The literature search was conducted using the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Center of Review and Dissemination databases. Only studies which measured the Kakwani index of progressivity in at least two time points were included. Articles written in English published between January 2004 and September 2015 were searched. No geographical restriction was imposed. An increment of more than 0.10 in the Kakwani index was considered as a significant health policy impact. In total 16 publications were included, of which nine studied attempts to decrease the OOP burden, four described the consequences of the introduction of formal fees, and three covered both topics. Overall, a significant health policy impact was noted in four cases. All of them related to a reduction in the OOP burden, with three and one noting a change towards the progressivity and regressivity of direct healthcare payments respectively. Among jurisdictions which introduced formal fees, none study noted a significant impact on the regressivity of OOP spendings. In the majority of cases, a health policy impact on the distribution of OOP health payments was insignificant. The reduction of OOP burden cannot be achieved successfully without adequate extension of healthcare coverage or engagement of other sources of healthcare financing. When formal fees are being introduced, protection against catastrophic healthcare payments is needed for the most vulnerable groups.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 27%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Researcher 5 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 18%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 10%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 19 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2020.
All research outputs
#7,487,737
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,917
of 14,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,599
of 321,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#177
of 336 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 336 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.