Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 May 28;9(5):e026554.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026554.

Measuring financial risk protection in health benefits packages: scoping review protocol to inform allocative efficiency studies

Affiliations

Measuring financial risk protection in health benefits packages: scoping review protocol to inform allocative efficiency studies

Gerard Joseph Abou Jaoude et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Introduction: To progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC), countries will need to define a health benefits package of services free at the point of use. Financial risk protection is a core component of UHC and should therefore be considered a key dimension of health benefits packages. Allocative efficiency modelling tools can support national analytical capacity to inform an evidence-based selection of services, but none are currently able to estimate financial risk protection. A review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection can facilitate their inclusion in modelling tools so that the latter can become more relevant to national decision making in light of UHC.

Methods and analysis: This protocol proposes to conduct a scoping review of existing methods used to measure financial risk protection and assess their potential to inform the selection of services in a health benefits package. The proposed review will follow the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and the subsequent recommendations made by Levac et al. Several databases will be systematically searched including: (1) PubMed; (2) Scopus; (3) Web of Science and (4) Google Scholar. Grey literature will also be scanned, and the bibliography of all selected studies will be hand searched. Following the selection of studies according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, key characteristics will be collected from the studies using a data extraction tool. Key characteristics will include the type of method used, geographical region of focus and application to specific services or packages. The extracted data will then be charted, collated, reported and summarised using descriptive statistics, a thematic analysis and graphical presentations.

Ethics and dissemination: The scoping review proposed in this protocol does not require ethical approval. The final results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and shared with key stakeholders.

Keywords: allocative efficiency modelling; financial risk protection; priority setting; scoping review protocol; universal health coverage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

References

    1. United Nations. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ (Accessed 19 Aug 2018).
    1. World Health Organisation. Universal Health Coverage: Fact Sheet: World Health Organisation, 2017. http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/universal-health-coverag... (Accessed 19 Aug 2018).
    1. World Health Organisation. The world health report: health systems financing: the path to universal coverage. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2010. - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organisation. Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2014. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Norheim OF. Ethical priority setting for universal health coverage: challenges in deciding upon fair distribution of health services. BMC Med 2016;14:75 10.1186/s12916-016-0624-4 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms