| Literature DB >> 27737663 |
Vu Duy Kien1,2, Hoang Van Minh3, Kim Bao Giang4, Amy Dao5, Le Thanh Tuan6, Nawi Ng7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The catastrophic health expenditure and impoverishment indices offer guidance for developing appropriate health policies and intervention programs to decrease financial inequity. This study assesses socioeconomic inequalities in catastrophic health expenditure and impoverishment in relation to self-reported non-communicable diseases (NCD) in urban Hanoi, Vietnam.Entities:
Keywords: Catastrophic health expenditure; Impoverishment; Inequality; Poverty; Urban; Vietnam
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27737663 PMCID: PMC5064924 DOI: 10.1186/s12939-016-0460-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Equity Health ISSN: 1475-9276
Fig. 1Sampling process in 4 urban district of Hanoi
Socioeconomic characteristics of households
| Slum, n (%) | Non-slum, n (%) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Household with members with self-reported NCDs | |||
| Cardiovascular disease | 48 (9.8) | 109 (20.6) | <0.001 |
| Chronic pulmonary disease | 34 (6.9) | 33 (6.3) | 0.67 |
| Diabetes | 45 (9.2) | 79 (15.0) | <0.01 |
| Cancer | 11 (2.2) | 11 (2.1) | 0.87 |
| Any NCD (at least one member with NCDs) | 116 (23.6) | 191 (36.2) | <0.001 |
| Household with female as household’s heads | 239 (48.6) | 255 (48.3) | 0.93 |
| Household size | |||
| 1–2 people | 127 (25.8) | 76 (14.4) | <0.001 |
| 3–4 people | 245 (49.8) | 231 (43.8) | |
| ≥ 5 people | 120 (24.4) | 221 (41.9) | |
| Household with at least one older people ≥60 years old | 214 (43.5) | 332 (62.9) | <0.001 |
| Household with at least one child <6 years old | 129 (26.2) | 172 (32.6) | 0.03 |
| Household with all members owned social health insurance | 223 (45.3) | 329 (62.3) | <0.001 |
| Household socioeconomic status (quintile) | |||
| Poorest (20 %) | 90 (18.3) | 107 (20.3) | 0.79 |
| Poor (20 %) | 103 (20.9) | 121 (22.9) | |
| Middle (20 %) | 99 (20.1) | 98 (18.6) | |
| Rich (20 %) | 99 (20.1) | 102 (19.3) | |
| Richest (20 %) | 101 (20.5) | 100 (18.9) | |
NCDs non-communicable diseases
Fig. 2Means and 95 % CI of household out-of-pocket payment per month for healthcare by socioeconomic status
Out-of-pocket payment for healthcare as a share of household capacity to pay and total household expenditure
| Overall | Households with at least one member with NCDs | Households without any member with NCDs |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Out-of-pocket payment for healthcare as a share of household’s capacity to pay, Median (Interquartile range) | ||||
| Slum areas | 6.2 (1.8–17.9) | 14.8 (5.1–35.2) | 4.5 (1.4–15.0) | <0.001 |
| Non-slum areas | 6.2 (1.8–14.4) | 11.2 (3.2–22.5) | 4.5 (1.2–11.0) | <0.001 |
|
| 0.29 | 0.02 | 0.21 | |
| Out-of-pocket payment for healthcare as a share of total household expenditure, Median (Interquartile range) | ||||
| Slum areas | 3.5 (1.0–10.4) | 8.3 (3.1–17.3) | 2.7 (0.8–8.0) | <0.001 |
| Non-slum areas | 3.6 (1.1–9.2) | 7.2 (2.0–14.3) | 2.9 (0.8–6.7) | <0.001 |
|
| 0.95 | 0.11 | 0.63 | |
NCDs non-communicable diseases
aMann-Whitney test to compare between households with at least one member with and without NCDs
bMann-Whitney test to compare between households in slum and non-slum areas
Pattern of catastrophic health expenditure and impoverishment of households
| Overall | Household with at least one member with NCDs | Household without any member with NCDs |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catastrophic health expenditure, % | ||||
| Slum areas | 10.0 | 20.7 | 6.6 | <0.001 |
| Non-slum areas | 6.6 | 10.5 | 4.5 | <0.01 |
|
| 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.20 | |
| Impoverishment, % | ||||
| Slum areas | 5.1 | 10.3 | 3.5 | <0.01 |
| Non-slum areas | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 0.94c |
|
| <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.09 | |
NCDs non-communicable diseases
aχ2 test to compare between households with at least one member with and without NCDs
bχ2 test to compare between households in slum and non-slum areas
cFisher’s exact test
Concentration index of household catastrophic health expenditure and impoverishment
| Overall | Households with at least one member with NCDs | Households without any member with NCDs |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catastrophic health expenditure, Concentration index (SE) | ||||
| Slum areas | −0.35 (0.07)*** | −0.30 (0.09)*** | −0.37 (0.12)** | 0.60 |
| Non-slum areas | −0.29 (0.10)** | −0.31 (0.12)** | −0.19 (0.17) | 0.54 |
|
| 0.60 | 0.94 | 0.38 | |
| Impoverishment, Concentration index (SE) | ||||
| Slum areas | −0.40 (0.08)*** | −0.42 (0.12)*** | −0.36 (0.10)*** | 0.70 |
| Non-slum areas | −0.23 (0.23) | −0.26 (0.35) | −0.21 (0.30) | 0.92 |
|
| 0.50 | 0.65 | 0.63 | |
NCDs non-communicable diseases, SE standard error
aIndependent t-test to compare between households with at least one member with and without NCDs
bIndependent t-test to compare households in slum and non-slum areas within each column
**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (t-test to compare the concentration index with 0)
Associated factors of household catastrophic health and impoverishment of households, assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis
| Catastrophic health expenditure | Impoverishment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95 % CI) |
| OR (95 % CI) |
| |
| Household with at least one member who reported diagnosis of NCDs | ||||
| Yes | 2.4 (1.5–3.9) | <0.01 | 2.3 (1.1–5.0) | 0.03 |
| No | 1 | 1 | ||
| Location of household | ||||
| Slum areas | 2.1 (1.2–3.5) | <0.01 | 3.9 (1.7–9.5) | <0.01 |
| Non-slum areas | 1 | 1 | ||
| Household with female as household’s heads | ||||
| Yes | 0.9 (0.6–1.5) | 0.78 | 1.9 (0.9–4.1) | 0.80 |
| No | 1 | 1 | ||
| Household size | ||||
| 1–2 people | 1 | 1 | ||
| 3–4 people | 0.7 (0.4–1.3) | 0.28 | 0.6 (0.2–1.4) | 0.24 |
| ≥ 5 people | 0.7 (0.3–1.4) | 0.31 | 0.8 (0.3–2.3) | 0.64 |
| Household with at least one older people ≥60 years old | ||||
| Yes | 1.9 (1.1–3.3) | 0.03 | 0.7 (0.3–1.7) | 0.47 |
| No | 1 | 1 | ||
| Household with at least one child <6 years old | ||||
| Yes | 0.6 (0.3–1.2) | 0.09 | 0.9 (0.3–2.5) | 0.80 |
| No | 1 | 1 | ||
| Household with all members owned social health insurance | ||||
| Yes | 1.1 (0.6–1.8) | 0.82 | 1.2 (0.6–2.7) | 0.67 |
| No | 1 | 1 | ||
| Household socioeconomic status (quintile) | ||||
| Poorest (20 %) | 4.9 (2.0–12.0) | <0.01 | 11.2 (1.4–91.4) | 0.02 |
| Poor (20 %) | 2.0 (0.7–5.2) | 0.14 | 9.3 (1.2–77.8) | 0.04 |
| Middle (20 %) | 2.0 (0.8–5.2) | 0.14 | 6.8 (0.8–59.1) | 0.07 |
| Rich (20 %) | 1.8 (0.7–4.8) | 0.21 | 3.2 (0.3–33.8) | 0.29 |
| Richest (20 %) | 1 | 1 | ||
NCDs non-communicable diseases, OR Odds Ratio, 95 % CI: 95 % confidence interval