scholarly journals Health insurance awareness and its uptake in India: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e043122
Author(s):  
Bhageerathy Reshmi ◽  
Bhaskaran Unnikrishnan ◽  
Shradha S Parsekar ◽  
Eti Rajwar ◽  
Ratheebhai Vijayamma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Healthcare Utilisation ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Universal Healthcare ◽  
Government Websites

IntroductionHealth insurance is one of the important approaches that can help in boosting universal healthcare coverage through improved healthcare utilisation and financial protection. This objectives of this review are to identify various interventions implemented in India to promote awareness of health insurance, and to provide evidence for the effectiveness of such interventions on the awareness and uptake of health insurance by the resident Indian population.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be carried out based on the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The review will include experimental and analytical observational studies that have included adult population (>18 years) in India. We will include any intervention, policy or programme that directly or indirectly affects awareness or uptake of health insurance. The following outcomes will be eligible to be included: awareness or health insurance literacy, attitude such as readiness to buy health insurance or decision making, uptake of health insurance, demand-side and supply-side factors for awareness of health insurance, and awareness as a factor for uptake and re-enrolment in health insurance. Databases such as MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, 3ie impact evaluation repository and Social Science Research Network will be searched from January 2010 to 15 July 2020. Additionally, important government websites and references of the included studies will be scanned to identify potential records. Three authors, independently, will carry out screening and data extraction. Studies will be categorised into quantitative and qualitative, and mixed-methods synthesis will be employed to analyse the findings.Ethics and disseminationThis review will be based on published studies and will not recruit human participants directly, therefore, ethical clearance is not applicable. We will disseminate the final review findings in a national or international conference and publish in a peer-reviewed journal.

scholarly journals Pandemic related Health literacy – A Systematic Review of literature in COVID-19, SARS and MERS pandemics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Jie Benjamin Seng ◽  
Cheng Teng Yeam ◽  
Caleb Weihao Huang ◽  
Ngiap Chuan Tan ◽  
Lian Leng Low
Keyword(s):  
Health Literacy ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Female Gender ◽  
Determinants Of Health ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Attitudes And Practices ◽  
Healthcare Administrators

AbstractBackgroundHealth literacy plays an essential role in one’s ability to acquire and understand critical medical information in the COVID-19 infodemic and other pandemics.PurposeTo summarize the assessment, levels and determinants of pandemic related health literacy and its associated clinical outcomes.Data sourcesMedline®, Embase®, PsychINFO®, CINAHL®, arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and Social Science Research Network. The start date was unrestricted and current as of 22 April 2020.Study selectionStudies which evaluated health literacy related to novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)Data extractionData on the characteristics of study designs, instruments, participants and level of health literacy were collected. Items used in instruments were grouped under the themes of knowledge, attitudes and practices. Determinants of health literacy were grouped into five domains (socio-demographic, medical, psychological/psychiatric, health systems related and others).Data synthesisOf 2,065 articles screened, 70 articles were included. 21, 17 and 32 studies evaluated health literacy related to COVID-19, SARS and MERS, respectively. The rates of low pandemic health literacy ranged from 4.3 to 57.9% among medical-related populations and 4.0% to 82.5% among non-medical populations. Knowledge about symptoms and transmission of infection; worry about infection and, practices related to mask usage and hand hygiene was most frequently evaluated. Socio-demographic determinants of health literacy were most studied, where higher education level, older age and female gender were associated with better health literacy. No studies evaluated outcomes associated with health literacy.LimitationsNon-English articles were excluded.ConclusionThe level of pandemic related health literacy is sub-optimal. Healthcare administrators need to be aware of health literacy determinants when formulating policies in pandemics.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis of non-workplace interventions to reduce time spent sedentary in adults

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Faye Hall ◽  
Rekesh Corepal ◽  
Thomas Frederick Crocker ◽  
Natalie Lam ◽  
Louisa-Jane Burton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Sitting Time ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Post Intervention

Background: Sedentary behaviour has been the focus of considerable clinical, policy and research interest due to its detrimental effects on health and wellbeing. This systematic review aims to (1) develop a more precise description of different categories of interventions that aim to reduce sedentary time in adults by identifying specific components that form an intervention; (2) explore the effect of different categories of interventions in reducing time spent sedentary in adults. Methods: Ten electronic databases, websites of relevant organisations (e.g. the Sedentary Behaviour Research Network), and relevant reviews were searched. Inclusion criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster and randomised cross-over trials, in the adult population (clinical and non-clinical). Any study including a measure of sedentary behaviour was included even if reducing sedentary behaviour was not the primary aim. Exclusion criteria: Interventions delivered in schools, colleges, or workplaces; studies investigating the immediate effects of breaking up sitting time as part of a supervised (usually laboratory-based) intervention. Two review authors conducted data extraction and quality assessment (GRADE approach). Results: Searches identified 39,223 records, of which 85 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Interventions shown to significantly reduce time spent sedentary were those which incorporated the provision of information, education, or support (advice/recommendations), in conjunction with either counselling (mean difference: -52.24 minutes/day; 95% CI: -85.37 to -19.10) or a form of structured/prescribed physical activity (standardised mean difference: -0.15; 95% CI: -0.23 to -0.07). However, this positive effect was not maintained at follow-up. No interventions were shown to break up prolonged sitting. Conclusions: This review presents a novel way of categorising interventions according to the types of components they comprised. There is evidence that interventions might be effective in reducing time spent sedentary immediately post-intervention. There were limited studies measuring sustained behaviour change.

scholarly journals Why does healthcare utilisation differ between socioeconomic groups in OECD countries with universal healthcare coverage? A protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e054806
Author(s):  
Iris Meulman ◽  
Ellen Uiters ◽  
Johan Polder ◽  
Niek Stadhouders
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Access ◽  
Healthcare Utilisation ◽  
Oecd Countries ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Socioeconomic Groups ◽  
Universal Healthcare ◽  
Healthcare Coverage ◽  
Universal Healthcare Coverage

IntroductionEven in advanced economies with universal healthcare coverage (UHC), a social gradient in healthcare utilisation has been reported. Many individual, community and healthcare system factors have been considered that may be associated with the variation in healthcare utilisation between socioeconomic groups. Nevertheless, relatively little is known about the complex interaction and relative contribution of these factors to socioeconomic differences in healthcare utilisation. In order to improve understanding of why utilisation patterns differ by socioeconomic status (SES), the proposed systematic review will explore the main mechanisms that have been examined in quantitative research.Methods and analysisThe systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines and will be conducted in Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Econlit and PsycInfo. Articles examining factors associated with the differences in primary and specialised healthcare utilisation between socioeconomic groups in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries with UHC will be included. Further restrictions concern specifications of outcome measures, factors of interest, study design, population, language and type of publication. Data will be numerically summarised, narratively synthesised and thematically discussed. The factors will be categorised according to existing frameworks for barriers to healthcare access.Ethics and disseminationNo primary data will be collected. No ethics approval is required. We intend to publish a scientific article in an international peer-reviewed journal.

Financial technology: a review of extant literature

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikas Sangwan ◽  
Harshita Harshita ◽  
Puneet Prakash ◽  
Shveta Singh
Keyword(s):  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Extant Literature ◽  
Product And Process Innovation ◽  
Product And Process ◽  
Financial Technology

Purpose This paper aims to undertake a thematic review of academic papers on financial technology (FinTech) to identify three broad categories for the purpose of classifying extant literature. The paper summarizes the research and findings in this emerging field. Thereafter, it identifies the gaps and provides directions for further research. Simultaneously, the paper collates technical terms related to FinTech that appear repeatedly in each category and explains them. Finally, the study highlights the lessons that growing FinTech firms and their regulators can learn from the experiences of their counterparts across the globe. Design/methodology/approach A systematic review of literature consisting of 130 studies (social science research network [SSRN]-29 papers, Scopus-81, other sources-20) on FinTech is carried out in this thematic paper. Findings This thematic paper divides FinTech into three themes, i.e. financial industry, innovation/technology and law/regulation. The paper suggests that a thorough impact of FinTech on various stakeholders can be understood using three dimensions, namely, consumers, market players and regulatory front. It is noted that FinTech is in its nascent phase and is undergoing continuous development and implementation through product and process innovation, disruption and transformation. Research limitations/implications The paper reports that FinTech promises huge potential for further study by various stakeholders in the FinTech industry – from academia to practitioners to regulators. Practical implications The paper summarizes lessons that could be of significance for FinTech users, producers, entrepreneurs, investors, policy designers and regulators. Originality/value The paper is believed to add value to the understanding of FinTech in light of the emerging threats and opportunities for its various stakeholders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document