| Literature DB >> 21414993 |
Paul Jacob Robyn1, Allan Hill, Yuanli Liu, Aurélia Souares, Germain Savadogo, Ali Sié, Rainer Sauerborn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examines the role of community-based health insurance (CBHI) in influencing health-seeking behaviour in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Community-based health insurance was introduced in Nouna district, Burkina Faso, in 2004 with the goal to improve access to contracted providers based at primary- and secondary-level facilities. The paper specifically examines the effect of CBHI enrolment on reducing the prevalence of seeking modern and traditional methods of self-treatment as the first choice in care among the insured population.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21414993 PMCID: PMC3291875 DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czr019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Policy Plan ISSN: 0268-1080 Impact factor: 3.344
Figure 1The decision-making process for seeking care Note: This figure presents a simplified decision-making tree highlighting options for care within Nouna health district. It should be noted that for any illness case, individuals may choose more than one care option during the search for treatment. Care-seeking pathways are not mutually exclusive
Distribution of illness by enrolment status
| Illness | Children (<15 years) | Adults (≥15 years) | Total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insured ( | Uninsured ( | Pearson chi-square | Insured ( | Uninsured ( | Pearson chi-square | Insured ( | Uninsured ( | Pearson chi-square | |
| Acute (%) | 6.22 | 4.43 | 4.46* | 7.10 | 5.51 | 6.18* | 6.85 | 5.17 | 10.52** |
| Chronic (%) | 1.22 | 0.88 | 0.76 | 4.81 | 4.92 | 7.19* | 3.65 | 3.58 | 0.02 |
First type of treatment sought given illness and insurance status
| Type of treatment sought | Insured group (%) | Uninsured group (%) | Pearson chi-square | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No care | 8.86 | 16.65 | 9.0426 | ** |
| Traditional self-care | 21.43 | 21.80 | 0.0159 | |
| Modern self-care | 31.09 | 29.63 | 0.1956 | |
| Traditional healer | 6.90 | 17.76 | 18.9262 | *** |
| Facility care | 31.72 | 14.16 | 35.3289 | *** |
| Observations ( | 19.11 | 80.89 |
Notes: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.
Logistic model results: propensity scores for CBHI enrolment at household level
| Variables | Insured (2007) | |
|---|---|---|
| OR | SE | |
| Distance to facility (non-urban) | 1.03*** | (0.00) |
| Household size | 1.00 | (0.00) |
| Household expenditure quintile | 1.35*** | (0.03) |
| Household share under-5 | 2.03* | (0.73) |
| Urban | 2.48*** | (0.18) |
| Bwaba | 1.01 | (0.09) |
| Peul | 1.90*** | (0.16) |
| Mossi | 0.91 | (0.07) |
| Dafine | 0.74* | (0.11) |
| Samo | 1.26** | (0.10) |
| Muslim | 0.95 | (0.12) |
| Catholic | 0.90 | (0.11) |
| Animist | 1.37 | (0.22) |
| Household head literate | 2.34*** | (0.12) |
| Household head male | 0.64*** | (0.05) |
| Household male married | 0.84 | (0.08) |
| Observations | 13 817 | |
| Pseudo R-squared | 0.124 | |
| N | 13 817 | |
| LLR | −5414 | |
Notes: z-statistics in parentheses.
*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.
Average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) for type of care (N = 1235)
| Dependent variable | ATT | SE | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional self-care | −0.039 | (0.05) | 0.442 |
| Modern self-care | −0.058 | (0.05) | 0.268 |
| Facility care | 0.202 | (0.05) | <0.001 |
| Traditional healer | −0.047 | (0.03) | 0.157 |
Note: Observations were matched using the same variables as in Table 3.
Multinomial logistic (MNL) model describing factors that influence the decision to seek care
| Variables | Traditional self-care | Modern self-care | Traditional healer | Public facility care | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative risk ratio | SE | Relative risk ratio | SE | Relative risk ratio | SE | Relative risk ratio | SE | |
| Insured (2007) | 1.42 | (0.66) | 1.09 | (0.50) | 0.91 | (0.51) | 2.73* | (1.26) |
| Distance to facility | 1.04** | (0.01) | 1.05*** | (0.01) | 1.02* | (0.01) | 1.02 | (0.01) |
| Employed | 1.40 | (0.93) | 0.57 | (0.33) | 0.62 | (0.40) | 0.52 | (0.29) |
| Sex (male = 1) | 0.93 | (0.35) | 0.77 | (0.30) | 0.65 | (0.26) | 0.80 | (0.32) |
| Literate | 1.46 | (0.58) | 2.00 | (0.73) | 0.29** | (0.14) | 1.85 | (0.73) |
| Expenditure quintile | 1.13 | (0.18) | 1.20 | (0.20) | 1.35 | (0.24) | 1.49* | (0.24) |
| Age quartile | 1.25 | (0.25) | 0.90 | (0.17) | 1.03 | (0.25) | 1.06 | (0.21) |
| Married | 0.54 | (0.22) | 0.90 | (0.37) | 1.40 | (0.68) | 0.75 | (0.34) |
| Perceived severity | 1.92* | (0.56) | 2.28** | (0.65) | 1.77* | (0.51) | 4.38*** | (1.27) |
| Urban | 1.64 | (0.65) | 5.09*** | (1.92) | 0.59 | (0.26) | 1.20 | (0.46) |
| Perceived facility quality | 0.85 | (0.18) | 1.00 | (0.21) | 0.89 | (0.19) | 1.04 | (0.24) |
| Acute illness | 1.51 | (0.47) | 2.94*** | (0.89) | 0.97 | (0.30) | 2.80*** | (0.86) |
| Household head literate | 0.87 | (0.43) | 0.25* | (0.15) | 0.72 | (0.37) | 0.35* | (0.19) |
| Household head male | 0.95 | (0.68) | 1.59 | (1.30) | 0.50 | (0.43) | 0.88 | (0.71) |
| Household head married | 0.79 | (0.51) | 0.72 | (0.48) | 1.57 | (1.29) | 1.52 | (1.08) |
| Propensity score | 1.00 | (0.01) | 1.00 | (0.00) | 0.99 | (0.01) | 1.00 | (0.01) |
| Observations | 645 | |||||||
| Pseudo R-squared | 0.133 | |||||||
Notes: Robust z-statistics in parentheses.
Treatment option 1 (no care) was used as the base outcome.
*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.