↓ Skip to main content

Who pays for and who benefits from health care services in Uganda?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 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
Who pays for and who benefits from health care services in Uganda?
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0683-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brendan Kwesiga, John E Ataguba, Christabel Abewe, Paul Kizza, Charlotte M Zikusooka

Abstract

BackgroundEquity in health care entails payment for health services according to the capacity to pay and the receipt of benefits according to need. In Uganda, as in many African countries, although equity is extolled in government policy documents, not much is known about who pays for, and who benefits from, health services. This paper assesses both equity in the financing and distribution of health care benefits in Uganda.MethodsData are drawn from the most recent nationally representative Uganda National Household Survey 2009/10. Equity in health financing is assessed considering the main domestic health financing sources (i.e., taxes and direct out-of-pocket payments). This is achieved using bar charts and standard concentration and Kakwani indices. Benefit incidence analysis is used to assess the distribution of health services for both public and non-public providers across socio-economic groups and the need for care. Need is assessed using limitations in functional ability while socioeconomic groups are created using per adult equivalent consumption expenditure.ResultsOverall, health financing in Uganda is marginally progressive; the rich pay more as a proportion of their income than the poor. The various taxes are more progressive than out-of-pocket payments (e.g., the Kakwani index of personal income tax is 0.195 compared with 0.064 for out-of-pocket payments). However, taxes are a much smaller proportion of total health sector financing compared with out-of-pocket payments. The distribution of total health sector services benefitsis pro-rich. The richest quintile receives 19.2% of total benefits compared to the 17.9% received by the poorest quintile. The rich also receive a much higher share of benefits relative to their need. Benefits from public health units are pro-poor while hospital based care, in both public and non-public sectors are pro-rich.ConclusionThere is a renewed interest in ensuring equity in the financing and use of health services. Based on the results in this paper, it would seem that in order to safeguard such equity, there is a need for policy that focuses on addressing the health needs of the poor while continuing to ensure that the burden of financing health services does not rest disproportionately on the poor.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Unknown 158 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 51 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 19 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Social Sciences 16 10%
Arts and Humanities 6 4%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 58 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 19 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,143,014
of 25,393,455 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#308
of 8,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,192
of 357,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#4
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 357,495 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.