Search

Background: Socioeconomic inequalities in health have been documented in many countries including those in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). However, a comprehensive assessment of health inequalities and inequalities in the distribution of health risk factors is scarce. This study specifically investigates inequalities both in poor self-assessed health (SAH) and in the distribution of selected risk factors of ill-health among the adult populations in six SADC countries. Methods: Data come from the 2002/04 World Health Survey (WHS) using six SADC countries (Malawi, Mauritius, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe) where the WHS was conducted. Poor SAH is reporting bad or very bad health status. Risk factors such as smoking, heavy drinking, low fruit and vegetable consumption and physical inactivity were considered. Other environmental factors were also considered. Socioeconomic status was assessed using household expenditures. Standardised and normalised concentration indices (CIs) were used to assess socioeconomic inequalities. A positive (negative) concentration index means a pro-rich (pro-poor) distribution where the variable is reported more among the rich (poor). Results: Generally, a pro-poor socioeconomic inequality exists in poor SAH in the six countries. However, this is only significant for South Africa (CI = − 0.0573; p < 0.05), and marginally significant for Zambia (CI = − 0.0341; P < 0.1) and Zimbabwe (CI = − 0.0357; p < 0.1). Smoking and inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption were significantly concentrated among the poor. Similarly, the use of biomass energy, unimproved water and sanitation were significantly concentrated among the poor. However, inequalities in heavy drinking and physical inactivity are mixed. Overall, a positive relationship exists between inequalities in ill-health and inequalities in risk factors of ill-health. Conclusion: There is a need for concerted efforts to tackle the significant socioeconomic inequalities in ill-health and health risk factors in the region. Because some of the determinants of ill-health lie outside the health sector, inter-sectoral action is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As the drive towards universal coverage is gaining momentum globally, the need for assessing levels of financial health protection in countries, particularity the developing world, has increasingly become important. In Swaziland, the level of financial health protection is not clearly understood. Objective: To assess financial catastrophe and impoverishment from out-of-pocket payments for health services in Swaziland. Methods: The nationally representative Swaziland Household Income and Expenditure Survey (2009/2010) dataset is used for the analyses. Data are collected by the Central Statistics Office in Swaziland. The final dataset contains information on 3,167 households (i.e. about 14,145 individuals) out of the anticipated 3,750 households. Financial catastrophe is assessed using an initial threshold that is adjusted to increase with household income (i.e. rank-dependent). Payment for health services is considered catastrophic when they exceed the threshold. Impoverishment is assessed using a national poverty line and an international poverty line ($1.25/day). Results: Using an initial threshold of 10.0% of household expenditure, 9.7% of Swazi households experience financial catastrophe while the proportion is estimated at 2.7% using an initial threshold of 40.0% of non-food expenditure. Between 1.0% and 1.6% of the Swazi population, representing between 10,000 and 16,000 people are pushed below the poverty line because of out-of-pocket payments. These findings indicate that financial health protection is not adequate in Swaziland. Conclusion: If Swaziland is to move towards achieving universal health coverage, there is a need to address the burden created by direct out-of-pocket payments. Among other things, this means that the country needs to consider financing mechanisms that guarantee equitable access to needed quality health services, which do not place undue hardship on the poor and vulnerable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]