Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

A systematic review of empirical studies on methodology and burden of informal patient payments in health systems.

Authors
  • Khodamoradi, Abdolvahed1
  • Ghaffari, Mohammad Payam2
  • Daryabeygi-Khotbehsara, Reza3
  • Sajadi, Haniye Sadat4
  • Majdzadeh, Reza4, 5
  • 1 Department of Health Economics, Social Security Research Institute, Tehran, Iran. , (Iran)
  • 2 Department of Business Management, Sciences and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. , (Iran)
  • 3 Department of Clinical Nutrition, School of Nutritional Sciences and Dietetics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. , (Iran)
  • 4 National Institute of Health Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. , (Iran)
  • 5 Community Based Participatory Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran/ Knowledge Utilization Research Centre, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran/ National Institute of Health Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran/ Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. , (Iran)
Type
Published Article
Journal
The International journal of health planning and management
Publication Date
Jan 01, 2018
Volume
33
Issue
1
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1002/hpm.2464
PMID: 29076562
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

Informal patients' payments (IPPs) is a sensitive subject. The aim of current study was to assess the trends in informal payment studies and explore methods of IPPs measurement, prevalence, and features (payment type, volume, and receiver) in various contexts. A search strategy was developed to identify peer-reviewed articles addressing informal payments on PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL. A total of 1252 studies were identified initially. After screening process, 38 studies were included in the systematic review. The selected studies were appraised, and findings were synthesized. Among selected studies, quantitative approaches were mostly used for measuring IPPs from general public and patients' perspective, and qualitative methods mainly targeted health care providers. Reported IPP prevalence in selected articles ranges between 2% and 80%, more prevalent in the inpatient sector than in outpatient. There are a number of strategies for the measurement of IPPs with different strengths and weaknesses. Most applied strategies for general public were quantitative surveys recruiting more than 1000 participants using a face-to-face structured interview, and then qualitative studies on less than 150 health care providers, with focus group discussion. This review provides a comprehensive picture of current informal patients' payments measurement tools, which helps researchers in future investigations. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times