Search

Introduction: A key element of the global drive to universal health coverage is ensuring access to needed health services for everyone, and to pursue this goal in an equitable way. This requires concerted efforts to reduce disparities in access through understanding and acting on barriers facing communities with the lowest utilisation levels. Financial barriers dominate the empirical literature on health service access. Unless the full range of access barriers are investigated, efforts to promote equitable access to health care are unlikely to succeed. This paper therefore focuses on exploring the nature and extent of non-financial access barriers. Methods: We draw upon two structured literature reviews on barriers to access and utilization of maternal, newborn and child health services in Ghana, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Rwanda. One review analyses access barriers identified in published literature using qualitative research methods; the other in published literature using quantitative analysis of household survey data. We then synthesised the key qualitative and quantitative findings through a conjoint iterative analysis. Results: Five dominant themes on non-financial access barriers were identified: ethnicity; religion; physical accessibility; decision-making, gender and autonomy; and knowledge, information and education. The analysis highlighted that non-financial factors pose considerable barriers to access, many of which relate to the acceptability dimension of access and are challenging to address. Another key finding is that quantitative research methods, while yielding important findings, are inadequate for understanding non-financial access barriers in sufficient detail to develop effective responses. Qualitative research is critical in filling this gap. The analysis also indicates that the nature of non-financial access barriers vary considerably, not only between countries but also between different communities within individual countries. Conclusions: To adequately understand access barriers as a basis for developing effective strategies to address them, mixed-methods approaches are required. From an equity perspective, communities with the lowest utilisation levels should be prioritised and the access barriers specific to that community identified. It is, therefore, critical to develop approaches that can be used at the district level to diagnose and act upon access barriers if we are to pursue an equitable path to universal health coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgery risks increase when electricity is accessible but unreliable. During unreliable electricity events and without data on increased risk to patients, medical professionals base their decisions on anecdotal experience. Decisions should be made based on a cost-benefit analysis, but no methodology exists to quantify these risks, the associated hidden costs, nor risk charts to compare alternatives. Methods: Two methodologies were created to quantify these hidden costs. In the first methodology through research literature and/or measurements, the authors obtained and analyzed a year's worth of hour-by-hour energy failures for four energy healthcare system (EHS) types in four regions (SolarPV in Iraq, Hydroelectric in Ghana, SolarPV+Wind in Bangladesh, and Grid+Diesel in Uganda). In the second methodology, additional patient risks were calculated according to time and duration of electricity failure and medical procedure impact type. Combining these methodologies, the cost from the Value of Statistical Lives lost divided by Energy shortage ($/kWh) is calculated for EHS type and region specifically. The authors define hidden costs due to electricity failure as VSL/E ($/kWh) and compare this to traditional electricity costs (always defined in $/kWh units), including Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE also in $/kWh). This is quantified into a fundamentally new energy healthcare system risk chart (EHS-Risk Chart) based on severity of event (probability of deaths) and likelihood of event (probability of electricity failure). Results: VSL/E costs were found to be 10 to 10,000 times traditional electricity costs (electric utility or LCOE based). The single power source EHS types have higher risks than hybridized EHS types (especially as power loads increase over time), but all EHS types have additional risks to patients due to electricity failure (between 3 to 105 deaths per 1,000 patients). Conclusions: These electricity failure risks and hidden healthcare costs can now be calculated and charted to make medical decisions based on a risk chart instead of anecdotal experience. This risk chart connects public health and electricity failure using this adaptable, scalable, and verifiable model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]