Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: China and Vietnam have made impressive progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) through government-led health insurance reforms. We compared the different pathways used to achieve UHC, to identify the lessons other countries can learn from China and Vietnam. METHODS: This was a mixed method study which included a literature review, in-depth interviews and secondary data analysis. We conducted a literature search in English and Chinese databases, and reviewed policy documents from internal contacts. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 policy makers, government bureaucrats, health insurance scholars in China and Vietnam. Secondary data was collected from National Health Statistics Reports, Health Insurance Statistical Reports and National Health Household Surveys carried out in both countries. We used population insurance coverage, insurance policies, reimbursement rates, number of households experiencing catastrophic heath expenditure (CHE) and incidence of impoverishment due to health expenditure (IHE) to measure the World Health Organization's three dimensions of UHC: population coverage, service coverage, and financial coverage. RESULTS: China has increased population coverage through strong political commitment and extensive government financial subsidies to expand coverage. Vietnam expanded population coverage gradually, by prioritizing the poor and the near-poor in an incremental way. In China, insurance service packages varied across regions and schemes and were greatly determined by financial contributions, resulting in limited service coverage in less developed areas. Vietnam focused on providing a comprehensive and universal service packages for all enrollees thereby approaching UHC in a more equitable manner. CHE rate decreased in Vietnam but increased in China between 2003 and 2008. While Vietnam has decreased the CHE gap between urban and rural populations, China suffers from persistent disparities among population income levels and geographic location. CHE and CHE ...

Wei Xing,1,* Rui Zhang,1,* Weixi Jiang,2,* Ting Zhang,3,* Michelle Pender,4 Jiani Zhou,1 Jie Pu,1 Shili Liu,1 Geng Wang,1 Yong Chen,1 Jin Li,1 Daiyu Hu,5 Shenglan Tang,4 Ying Li1 1Department of Social Medicine and Health Service Management, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Chongqing, People's Republic of China; 2Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China; 3Department of Districts and Counties, Chongqing Institute of TB Prevention and Treatment, Chongqing, People's Republic of China; 4Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; 5Chongqing Institute of TB Prevention and Treatment, Chongqing, People's Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Shenglan TangDuke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USAEmail shenglan.tang@duke.eduYing LiDepartment of Social Medicine and Health Service Management, Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University), Chongqing, People's Republic of ChinaEmail Lilyliying2012@163.ComAim: This paper evaluated the treatment adherence for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and MDR-TB case management (MTCM) in Chongqing, China in order to identify factors associated with poor treatment adherence and case management.Methods: Surveys with 132 MDR-TB patients and six in-depth interviews with health care workers (HCWs) from primary health centers (PHC), doctors from MDR-TB designated hospitals and MDR-TB patients were conducted. Surveys collected demographic and socio-economic characteristics, as well as factors associated with treatment and case management. In-depth interviews gathered information on treatment and case management experience and adherence behaviors.Results: Patient surveys found the two main reasons for poor adherence were negative side-effects from the treatment and busy work schedules. In-depth interviews with key stakeholders found that self-perceived symptom improvement, negative side-effects from treatment and financial difficulties were the main reasons for poor adherence. MDR-TB patients from urban areas, who were unmarried, were female, had migrant status, and whose treatments were supervised by health care workers from primary health clinics, had poorer treatment adherence (P< 0.05). Among the MDR-TB patients surveyed, 86.7% received any type of MTCM in general (received any kind of MTCM from HCWs in PHC, MDR-TB designated hospital and centers of disease control/TB dispensaries and 62.50% received MTCM from HCWs in PHC sectors). Patients from suburban areas were more likely to receive both MTCM in general (OR=6.70) and MTCM from HCWs in MDR-TB designated hospitals (OR=2.77), but female patients (OR=0.26) were less likely to receive MTCM from HCWs in PHC sectors, and patients who were not educated about MTCM by TB doctors in designated hospitals were less likely to receive MTCM in general (OR=0.14). Patients who had not been hospitalized were less likely to receive MTCM from HCWs in MDR-TB designated hospitals (OR=0.21).Conclusion: Stronger MTCM by HCWs in PHC sectors would improve treatment adherence among MDR-TB patients. Community-based patient-centered models of MTCM in PHC sectors and the use of digital health technology could help to improve case management and thereby improve adherence.Keywords: multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis, management, treatment, adherence behaviors