Search

Objectives: The study investigated the relationship between electricity access and infant mortality at the subnational level in Ghana, controlling for correlates such as birth interval, children living with both parents, women's education, and income distribution., Methods: The study employed a pooled cross-section regression approach using data from the Ghana Demographic and Health Survey (GDHS) for 10 administrative regions from 1993 to 2014. The GDHS is a detailed data set that provides comprehensive information on households and their socio-economic and demographic characteristics in Ghana., Results: The results show that in regions with low incidence of infant mortality, a 10% improvement in electricity access reduces infant death by 11.8 per 1,000 live births, whereas in high mortality regions, improvement in electricity access has no impact on infant death. Birth interval reduces the risk of infant death in low mortality regions but not in high mortality regions. Children living with both parents have a high probability of survivorship in high mortality regions. Women's median years of education lowers the likelihood of infant death in high mortality regions but increases the likelihood in low mortality regions. Wealth distribution is inconsequential for infant death in low mortality regions, but in high mortality regions, both the wealthiest and the poorest experienced significant decline in infant death., Conclusions: The findings underscore the fruitfulness of investigating the effects of electricity access and other correlates on infant mortality at the subnational level. The study recommends that the provision of reliable access to electricity is needed to improve infant mortality rates. However, policies that seek to improve access to reliable electricity should be implemented together with health infrastructure development policies, especially in the regions with high infant mortality rates, for electricity access to have the desired effect., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Although several studies have compared patient outcomes by provider specialty in the treatment of back and joint pain, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of improving patient outcomes across specialties. This study uses a large-scale, nationally representative database to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of being treated by specific provider specialists for back and joint pain in the United States., Method: The 2002-2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys were used to examine patients diagnosed with back and/or joint problems seeking treatment from doctors (internal medicine, family/general, osteopathic medicine, orthopaedics, rheumatology, neurology) or other providers (chiropractor, physical therapist, acupuncturist, massage therapist). A total of 16,546 respondents aged 18 to 85 and clinically diagnosed with back/joint pain were examined. Self-reported measures of physical and mental health and general quality of life (measured by the EuroQol-5D) were compared with average total costs of treatment across medical providers., Results: Total annual treatment costs per person ranged from $397 for family/general doctors to $1205 for rheumatologists. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that osteopathic, family/general, internal medicine doctors and chiropractors and massage therapists were more cost-effective than other specialties in improving physical function to back pain patients. For mental health measures, family/general and orthopaedic doctors and physical therapists were more cost-effective compared with other specialties. Similar to results on physical function, family/general, osteopathic and internal medicine doctors dominated other specialties. However, only massage therapy was cost-effective among non-doctor providers in improving quality of life measures., Conclusions: Patients seeking care for back and joint-related health problems face a wide range of treatments, costs and outcomes depending on which specialist provider they see. This study provides important insight on the relationship between health care costs and patients' perceived physical and mental health status from receiving treatment for diagnosed back/joint problems., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)