MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942290845 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2019.00102

Universal Health Coverage and Facilitation of Equitable Access to Care in Africa

2019· review· en· W2942290845 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careUniversal designMedicineInclusion (mineral)Systematic reviewMEDLINEBusinessFamily medicineNursingEconomic growthPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is achieved in a health system when all residents of a country are able to obtain access to adequate healthcare and financial protection. Achieving this goal requires adequate healthcare and healthcare financing systems that ensure financial access to adequate care. In Africa, accessibility and coverage of essential health services are very low. Many African countries have therefore initiated reforms of their health systems to achieve universal health coverage and are advanced in this goal. The aim of this paper is to examine the effects of UHC on equitable access to care in Africa. Methods: A systematic review guided by the Cochrane Handbook was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria (PRISMA). Studies were eligible for inclusion if 1- they clearly mention studying the effect of UHC on equitable access to care, and 2- they mention facilitating factors and barriers to access to care for vulnerable populations. To be included, studies had to be in English or French. In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, our systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on April 24, 2018 (registration number CRD42018092793). Results: In all 271 citations reviewed, 12 studies were eligible for inclusion. Although universal health coverage seems to increase the use of health services, shortages in human resources and medical supplies, socio-cultural barriers, physical inaccessibility, lack of education and information, decision-making power and gender-based autonomy, prenatal visits, previous experiences, and fear of caesarean delivery were still found to deter access to, and use of, health services. Discussion: Barriers to greater effectiveness of the UHC correspond to various non-financial barriers. There are no specific recommendations for these kinds of barriers. Generally, it is important for each country to research and identify contextual uncertainties in each of the communities of the territory. Afterwards, it will be necessary to put in place adapted strategies to correct these uncertainties, and thus to work towards a more efficient system of UHC, resulting in positive impacts on health outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it