DESIGN: Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus were searched from 2017-2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria include original articles, case studies and reports that has been written in the English Language, while manuscripts with no full article, reviews, newspaper reports, grey literatures, and articles that did not answer the review objectives were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We carried out data extraction using a standardized data extraction form, that has been organized using Microsoft Excel. A narrative synthesis was carried out to combine the findings of all included articles.
RESULTS: A total of 70 records were identified and 18 were reviewed, yielding eight articles to be included in the accepted list of studies. All studies were conducted in developing countries and most of the studies were cross sectional. Factors that were associated with women's autonomy in healthcare decision making were age, women's education and occupation, husbands'/partners' education and occupation, residential location or region of residence, household wealth index as well as culture and religion.
CONCLUSIONS: Identification of these factors may help stakeholders in improving women's autonomy in healthcare decision making. Policymakers play a crucial role in healthcare decision making by enacting laws and policies that protect women's rights, promoting gender-sensitive healthcare services, ensuring access to comprehensive information, promoting health education, and supporting vulnerable populations. These efforts ensure women's autonomy including able to access to unbiased and effective healthcare services.
Methods: We applied a retrospective approach using a top-down costing method to estimate the cost of health care services. Clinical and Administrative departments divided into cost centres, and the unit cost was calculated by dividing the total cost of final care cost centres into the total number of patients discharged in one year. The average cost of inpatient services was calculated based on the average cost of each ward and the number of patients treated.
Results: The average cost per patient stayed in KFCH was SAR 19,034, with the highest cost of SAR 108,561 for patients in the Orthopedic ward. The average cost of the patient in the Surgery ward, Plastic surgery, Neurosurgery, Medical ward, Pediatric ward and Gynecology ward was SAR 33,033, SAR 29,425, SAR 23,444, SAR 20,450, SAR 9579 and SAR 8636 respectively.
Conclusion: This study provides necessary information about the cost of health care services in a tertiary care setting. This information can be used as a primary tool and reference for further studies in other regions of the country. Hence, this data can help to provide a better understanding of tertiary hospital costing in the region to achieve the privatization objective.
METHODS: This study adopted a comparative case study design with a qualitative focus to identify similarities and differences of the potential barriers and facilitators to implementing the insulin PDA across different sites. Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 28 healthcare providers and 15 patients from five public health clinics under the Ministry of Health in Malaysia. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the thematic approach.
RESULTS: Five themes emerged which were: 1) time constraint; 2) PDA costs; 3) tailoring PDA use to patient profile; 4) patient decisional role; and 5) leadership and staff motivation. Based on the interviews and drawing on observations and interview reflection notes, time constraint emerged as the common prominent factor that cut across all the clinics, however, tailoring PDA use to patient profile; patient decisional role; leadership and staff motivation varied due to the distinct challenges faced by specific clinics. Among clinics from semi-urban areas with more patients from limited education and lower socio-economic status, patients' ability to comprehend the insulin PDA and their tendency to rely on their doctors and family to make health decisions were felt to be a prominent barrier to the insulin PDA implementation. Staff motivation appeared to be stronger in most of the clinics where specific time was allocated to diabetes team to attend to diabetes patients and this was felt could be a potential facilitator, however, a lack of leadership might affect the insulin PDA implementation even though a diabetes team is present.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found time constraint as a major potential barrier for PDA implementation and effective implementation of the insulin PDA across different public health clinics would depend on leadership and staff motivation and, the need to tailor PDA use to patient profile. To ensure successful implementation, implementers should avoid a 'one size fits all' approach when implementing health innovations.