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 OpenAlexaff
N’doh Ashken Sanogo, Arone Wondwossen Fantaye, Sanni Yaya

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.098
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.098
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207