METHODS: A cross-sectional, facility-based, concurrent mixed-methods study was carried out in seven health facilities in the Kailali, Baglung, and Ilam districts of Nepal. A total of 822 beneficiaries, sampled using probability proportional to size (PPS), attending health care institutions, were interviewed using a structured questionnaire for quantitative data. A total of seven focus group discussions (FGDs) and 12 in-depth interviews (IDIs), taken purposefully, were conducted with beneficiaries and service providers, using guidelines, respectively. Quantitative data were entered into Epi-data and analyzed with SPSS, MS-Excel, and Epitools, an online statistical calculator. Manual thematic analysis with predefined themes was carried out for qualitative data. Percentage, frequency, mean, and median were used to describe the variables, and the Chi-square test and binary logistic regression were used to infer the findings. We then combined the qualitative data from beneficiaries' and providers' perceptions, and experiences to explore different aspects of health insurance programs as well as to justify the quantitative findings.
RESULTS AND PROSPECTS: Of a total of 822 respondents (insured-404, uninsured-418), 370 (45%) were men. Families' median income was USD $65.96 (8.30-290.43). The perception of insurance premiums did not differ between the insured and uninsured groups (p = 0.53). Similarly, service utilization (OR = 220.4; 95% CI, 123.3-393.9) and accessibility (OR = 74.4; 95% CI, 42.5-130.6) were found to have high odds among the insured as compared to the uninsured respondents. Qualitative findings showed that the coverage and service quality were poor. Enrollment was gaining momentum despite nearly a one-tenth (9.1%) dropout rate. Moreover, different aspects, including provider-beneficiary communication, benefit packages, barriers, and ways to go, are discussed. Additionally, we also argue for some alternative health insurance schemes and strategies that may have possible implications in our contexts.
CONCLUSION: Although enrollment is encouraging, adherence is weak, with a considerable dropout rate and poor renewal. Patient management strategies and insurance education are recommended urgently. Furthermore, some alternate schemes and strategies may be considered.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in three Malaysian public hospitals using a multilevel sampling technique to recruit 630 respondents. A validated self-developed four-domain questionnaire which includes one domain for health insurance was used to collect the relevant data.
RESULTS: Approximately 31.7% of the respondents owned PHI. The PHI usage was significantly higher among male respondents (p=0.035), those aged 18-40 years old (p<0.001), Indian and Chinese ethnicities (p=0.002), with tertiary education level (p<0.001), employed (p<0.001), working in the private sector (p<0.001), high household income (T20) (p<0.001), home near to the hospital (p=0.001) and medium household size (p<0.001). The significant predictive factors were age 18-40 years aOR 3.01 (95% CI: 1.67-5.41), age 41-60 years aOR 2.22 (95% CI 1.41-3.49), medium (M40) income aOR 2.90 (95% CI: 1.92-4.39) and high (T20) income aOR 3.86 (95% CI: 1.68-18.91), home near to the hospital aOR 1.68 (95% CI: 1.10-2.55), medium household size aOR 2.20 (95% CI: 1.30-3.72) and female head of household aOR 1.79 (95% CI: 1.01-3.16). The type of cancer treatment, the location of treatment, prior treatment in private healthcare facilities and existence of financial coping mechanisms also were significant factors in determining PHI usage among cancer patients in this study.
CONCLUSION: Several factors are significantly associated with PHI usage in cancer patients. The outcome of this study can guide policymakers to identify high-risk groups which need supplementary health insurance to bear the cost for their cancer treatment so that a better pre-payment health financing system such as a national health insurance can be formulated to cater for these groups.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.
METHODS: A search for relevant articles was carried out using Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and MEDLINE (via EBSCOhost), Scopus, Science Direct, PubMed and Google Scholar with multiple search terms. Inclusion criteria comprised articles published in English language and assessing general health literacy. Risk of bias reduced with the involvement of two independent reviewers in the screening of the literature and the quality assessment process.
RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included, which only consist of studies from five countries out of 11 making up the Southeast Asian region. The overall prevalence of limited health literacy varied considerably, 1.6%-99.5% with a mean of 55.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 35.1%-75.6%). A much higher prevalence was noted in studies conducted in healthcare settings, 67.5% (95% CI: 48.6%-86.3%). The most common factors associated with limited health literacy were education attainment, age, income and socio-economic background. Other factors identified were gender and health behaviours.
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, despite the little evidence available and existences of high heterogeneity among studies, limited health literacy is still prevalent in Southeast Asian countries. Urgent strategies to improve and promote health literacy in the region are highly warranted. Besides, more studies on health literacy with better quality on the methodology aspect are needed.