MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006629608 · doi:10.1093/heapol/czz181

Who benefits most from extending financial protection for cataract surgery in Vietnam? An extended cost-effectiveness analysis of small incision surgery

2020· article· en· W3006629608 on OpenAlexaff
Beverley M. Essue, Stephen Jan, Huynh Tan Phuc, Sarity Dodson, Kirsten Armstrong, Tracey‐Lea Laba

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Policy and Planning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
FundersMedical Research CouncilFred Hollows Foundation
KeywordsMedicineCost–benefit analysisHealth careEnvironmental healthPovertySurgeryEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment costs remain a barrier for having timely cataract surgery in Vietnam, particularly for females and the poor, despite significant progress in achieving universal health coverage (UHC). This study evaluated the potential impact, on health and financial protection, of eliminating medical and non-medical out-of-pocket costs associated with cataract surgery. An extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA) was conducted with a societal perspective. The ECEA modelled how many more disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and cases of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) and medical impoverishment could be averted across income quintiles and between males and females. Two programmes were evaluated: (1) eliminating medical out-of-pocket costs for small incision cataract surgery and (2) Programme A plus a voucher programme covering non-medical out-of-pocket costs. Compared with current, the incremental cost per year of Programme A was estimated to be $833 396 and $1 641 835 for Programme B, each representing <0.01% of total health care spending in 2016. Males and females in the richest income quintiles would avert more DALYs than those in the poorest quintiles. For both programmes, most cases of CHE would be averted by individuals in the poorest income quintile. Programme B would avert the most CHE cases overall and females would have a greater share of benefits. All cases of impoverishing medical expenditure would be averted by individuals in the poorest quintile (A: 115 cases and B: 493 cases) for both programmes. The cost to avert each case of CHE with Programme A ranged from $67 to $292 and $100 to $232 for Programme B. We found a pro-rich health distribution and a pro-poor CHE distribution associated with eliminating out-of-pocket costs of cataract surgery in Vietnam. A programme that addressed both medical and non-medical out-of-pocket costs could have the greatest impact on improving financial protection in this population, particularly among the poorest income quintiles and for females. This study supports the concordance between the objectives of UHC and gender equity.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Policy and PlanningSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207