Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Measuring financial risk protection in health benefits packages: scoping review protocol to inform allocative efficiency studies
  1. Gerard Joseph Abou Jaoude,
  2. Jolene Skordis-Worrall,
  3. Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli
  1. Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Mr Gerard Joseph Abou Jaoude; gerard.jaoude.15{at}ucl.ac.uk

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.

  • universal health coverage
  • financial risk protection
  • priority setting
  • allocative efficiency modelling
  • scoping review protocol

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors contributed meaningfully to the preparation, drafting and editing of this scoping review protocol. GJAJ and HH-B conceived the idea and GJAJ led protocol development. GJAJ (corresponding author) conceptualised the research questions and core research plan details before preparing the initial draft of this manuscript. JS-W and HH-B provided critical input on the draft, research questions and methodology. All authors approved the final submitted manuscript after several iterations and rounds of editing and agree to be accountable for all aspects of this protocol.

  • Funding This work was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation grant number OPP1179683.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.