| Literature DB >> 27982383 |
Vera Lucia Luiza1, Noemia Urruth Leão Tavares2, Maria Auxiliadora Oliveira1, Paulo Sergio Dourado Arrais3, Luiz Roberto Ramos4, Tatiane da Silva Dal Pizzol5, Sotero Serrate Mengue6, Mareni Rocha Farias7, Andréa Dâmaso Bertoldi8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the magnitude of the expenditure on medicines in Brazil according to region, household size and composition in terms of residents in a situation of dependency.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27982383 PMCID: PMC5157912 DOI: 10.1590/S1518-8787.2016050006172
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Saude Publica ISSN: 0034-8910 Impact factor: 2.106
Distribution of households stratified by economy class according to the regions of the Country, number of inhabitants, and the presence of children and residents in situation of dependency by age. PNAUM, Brazil, 2014.
| Variable | Proportion of householdsa,b | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| A/B | C | D/E | Total | |||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| % | 95%CI | % | 95%CI | % | 95%CI | % | 95%CI | |
| Region | ||||||||
| North | 4.8 | 3.5–6.7 | 7.8 | 6.1–9.9 | 9.2 | 7.0–12.1 | 7.4 | 5.9–9.4 |
| Northeast | 10.3 | 7.7–13.8 | 24.3 | 20.0–29.1 | 44.4 | 37.5–51.6 | 25.3 | 21.0–30.1 |
| Southeast | 57.6 | 50.9–64.0 | 44.5 | 38.6–50.4 | 33.3 | 26.7–40.7 | 45.1 | 39.4–51.0 |
| South | 18.2 | 14.4–22.8 | 14.8 | 11.9–18.4 | 6.7 | 5.0–9.0 | 13.9 | 11.2–17.1 |
| Midwest | 9.0 | 6.8–11.9 | 8.7 | 6.8–10.9 | 6.3 | 4.7–8.3 | 8.3 | 6.5–10.4 |
| Number of residents | ||||||||
| 1 | 6.7 | 5.2–8.4 | 11.5 | 10.2–13.0 | 17.1 | 15.2–19.2 | 11.6 | 10.5–12.7 |
| 2 | 20.0 | 17.5–22.7 | 19.6 | 18.4–20.8 | 22.4 | 20.4–24.5 | 20.2 | 19.2–21.3 |
| ≥ 3 | 73.3 | 70.0–76.5 | 68.9 | 66.9–70.9 | 60.5 | 57.5–63.4 | 68.2 | 66.5–69.9 |
| Situation of dependency by agec | ||||||||
| Presence of people under 5 years | 10.6 | 4.9–21.3 | 28.3 | 26.5–30.2 | 30.6 | 28.0–33.3 | 27.2 | 25.7–28.8 |
| Presence of people under 15 years | 46.8 | 43.8–49.9 | 52.5 | 50.4–54.5 | 51.8 | 48.8–54.7 | 51.1 | 49.2–52.9 |
| The presence of people aged 65 years or over | 19.9 | 17.9–22.0 | 19.9 | 18.5–21.5 | 22.3 | 20.1–24.6 | 20.4 | 19.2–21.7 |
| Presence of people under 15 years, 65 years or over | 61.8 | 59.0–64.6 | 67.7 | 66.1–69.3 | 69.1 | 66.4–71.6 | 66.7 | 65.3–68.0 |
|
| ||||||||
| Total | 22.3 | 20.4–24.4 | 57.3 | 55.8–58.9 | 20.3 | 18.6–22.2 | 100 | - |
a The percentages shown were weighted by the sample weights.
b Brazil Economic Classification Criterion developed by the Brazilian Research Association (CCEB 2013/ABEP). Available from: http://www.abep.org
c The percentages correspond to the dichotomous situation, in this case, the absence of a resident in the corresponding condition.
Prevalence of households with catastrophic health expenditure stratified by economic class, according to the regions of the Country, number of inhabitants, and presence of children and residents in a situation of dependency by age. PNAUM, Brazil, 2014.
| Variable | Prevalence of households where catastrophic health expenditure was declareda,b | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| A/B (n = 137) | C (n = 727) | D/E (n = 288) | General (n = 1.152) | |||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| % | 95%CI | % | 95%CI | % | 95%CI | % | 95%CI | |
| Region | p < 0.001 | p = 0.001 | p = 0.072 | p < 0.001 | ||||
| North | 3.2 | 1.7–5.8c | 6.8 | 5.0–9.2 | 6.7 | 4.4–10.2 | 6.2 | 4.8–8.1 |
| Northeast | 6.9 | 3.5–13.1c | 7.8 | 5.9–10.0 | 8.3 | 6.3–10.9 | 7.9 | 6.3–9.8 |
| Southeast | 1.5 | 0.8–2.7c | 3.8 | 2.6–5.5 | 4.2 | 2.2–7.6c | 3.2 | 2.4–4.2 |
| South | 3.3 | 2.3–4.6 | 7.3 | 5.9–9.0 | 6.7 | 4.0–11.0 | 6.1 | 5.0–7.3 |
| Midwest | 3.5 | 2.2–5.4 | 6.7 | 5.4–8.2 | 8.8 | 5.2–14.4 | 6.2 | 5.1–7.5 |
| Number of residents | p = 0.016 | p < 0.001 | p = 0.002 | p < 0.001 | ||||
| 1 | 0.8 | 0.3–1.9c | 2.6 | 1.8–3.7 | 2.8 | 1.7–4.5 | 2.4 | 1.8–3.2 |
| 2 | 1.7 | 1.0–2.9 | 5.3 | 4.2–6.7 | 6.9 | 4.7–9.8 | 4.9 | 4.0–5.9 |
| ≥ 3 | 3.0 | 2.2–4.2 | 6.4 | 5.3–7.7 | 7.8 | 6.0–9.9 | 5.8 | 5.0–6.8 |
| Situation of dependency by age | ||||||||
| Under 5 years | p = 0.006 | p = 0.749 | p = 0.178 | p = 0.372 | ||||
| Presence | 1.4 | 0.8–2.3 | 6.0 | 4.5–8.0 | 8.2 | 5.6–11.8 | 5.7 | 4.5–7.1 |
| Absence | 3.0 | 2.1–4.1 | 5.7 | 4.9–6.6 | 6.1 | 4.7–7.8 | 5.1 | 4.5–5.8 |
| Under 15 years | p = 0.064 | p = 0.051 | p = 0.015 | p = 0.001 | ||||
| Presence | 3.4 | 2.1–5.3 | 6.4 | 5.2–7.9 | 8.1 | 6.2–10.5 | 6.1 | 5.2–7.3 |
| Absence | 2.0 | 1.4–2.8 | 5.0 | 4.3–5.9 | 5.2 | 4.0–6.9 | 4.3 | 3.8–5.0 |
| 65 years or over | p = 0.121 | p = 0.408 | p = 0.323 | p = 0.628 | ||||
| Presence | 3.7 | 2.5–5.4 | 5.3 | 4.4–6.4 | 5.7 | 4.1–7.9 | 5.1 | 4.3–5.9 |
| Absence | 2.4 | 1.6–3.5 | 5.9 | 4.9–7.0 | 7.0 | 5.5–8.9 | 5.3 | 4.6–6.2 |
| Under 15 years, 65 years or over | p = 0.002 | p = 0.325 | p = 0.255 | p = 0.010 | ||||
| Presence | 3.4 | 2.4–4.8 | 6.0 | 5.0–7.2 | 7.2 | 5.6–9.1 | 5.7 | 4.9–6.6 |
| Absence | 1.4 | 0.9–2.2 | 5.3 | 4.4–6.4 | 5.7 | 4.0–8.0 | 3.7 | 5.2–8.7c |
| General | 2.6 | 1.9–2.2 | 5.8 | 5.0–6.7 | 6.7 | 5.4–8.3 | 5.3 | 4.6–6.0 |
a The percentages shown were weighted by the sample weights.
b Brazil Economic Classification Criterion developed by the Brazilian Research Association (CCEB 2013/ABEP). Available from: http://www.abep.org
c We recommend caution in the interpretation of the data.
Prevalence of households with catastrophic expenditure on medicines stratified by economic class, according to the regions of the Country, number of inhabitants, and presence of children and residents in a situation of dependency by age. PNAUM, Brazil, 2014.
| Variable | Prevalence of households where catastrophic expenditure on medicines was declareda,b | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| A/B (n = 80) | C (n = 466) | D/E (n = 194) | General (n = 740) | |||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| % | 95%CI | % | 95%CI | % | 95%CI | % | 95%CI | |
| Region | p = 0.000 | p = 0.000 | p = 0.135 | p = 0.000 | ||||
| North | 2.2 | 1.0–5.1c | 4.5 | 3.2–6.3 | 5.1 | 3.1–8.4 | 4.3 | 3.2–5.9 |
| Northeast | 5.2 | 2.2–12.1c | 5.5 | 4.2–7.1 | 5.6 | 4.1–7.6 | 5.5 | 4.3–7.0 |
| Southeast | 0.9 | 0.4–2.1c | 1.8 | 1.2–2.5 | 3.0 | 1.5–5.9c | 1.7 | 1.3–2.3 |
| South | 2.1 | 1.4–3.1 | 3.9 | 2.9–5.3 | 5.4 | 3.0–9.7c | 3.5 | 2.7–4.5 |
| Midwest | 1.5 | 0.9–2.5 | 3.7 | 2.8–4.8 | 4.6 | 2.3–9.2c | 3.3 | 2.6–4.2 |
| Number of residents | p = 0.010 | p < 0.001 | p = 0.007 | p < 0.001 | ||||
| 1 | 0.4 | 0.1–1.5c | 1.6 | 1.0–2.5 | 2.0 | 1.1–3.6 | 1.6 | 1.1–2.2 |
| 2 | 0.7 | 1.4–30.5c | 3.2 | 2.5–4.2 | 5.1 | 3.2–7.9 | 3.1 | 2.4–3.9 |
| ≥ 3 | 2.1 | 1.3–3.2 | 3.7 | 3.0–4.5 | 5.2 | 3.8–6.9 | 3.6 | 3.0–4.2 |
| Situation of dependency by age | ||||||||
| Under 5 years | p = 0.034 | p = 0.088 | p = 0.194 | p = 0.337 | ||||
| Presence | 0.8 | 0.4–1.7 | 2.8 | 2.1–3.7 | 6.2 | 4.2–9.0 | 3.2 | 2.6–4.1 |
| Absence | 1.9 | 1.2–3.0 | 3.6 | 3.0–4.3 | 3.9 | 2.9–5.3 | 3.2 | 2.7–3.8 |
| Under 15 years | p = 0.026 | p = 0.008 | p = 0.041 | p < 0.001 | ||||
| Presence | 2.5 | 1.4–4.3 | 3.4 | 2.7–4.2 | 5.5 | 4.1–7.4 | 3.6 | 3.0–4.4 |
| Absence | 1.0 | 0.6–1.6 | 3.3 | 2.7–4.0 | 3.7 | 2.6–5.2 | 2.8 | 2.4–3.3 |
| 65 years or over | p = 0.179 | p = 0.429 | p = 0.346 | p = 0.879 | ||||
| Presence | 2.1 | 1.2–3.5 | 3.4 | 2.7–4.2 | 3.5 | 2.2–5.4 | 3.1 | 2.5–3.8 |
| Absence | 1.6 | 0.9–2.7 | 3.4 | 2.8–4.0 | 4.9 | 3.8–6.5 | 3.3 | 2.8–3.9 |
| Under 15 years, 65 years or over | p < 0.001 | p = 0.097 | p = 0.294 | p = 0.010 | ||||
| Presence | 2.4 | 1.5–3.8 | 3.3 | 2.7–4.0 | 4.8 | 3.6–6.3 | 3.4 | 2.9–4.0 |
| Absence | 0.5 | 0.3–1.0 | 3.5 | 2.8–4.4 | 4.3 | 2.8–6.5 | 2.9 | 2.4–3.6 |
| General | 1.7 | 1.1–2.5 | 3.4 | 2.9–3.9 | 4.6 | 3.6–5.9 | 3.2 | 2.8–3.8 |
a The percentages shown were weighted by the sample weights.
b Brazil Economic Classification Criterion developed by the Brazilian Research Association (CCEB 2013/ABEP). Available from: http://www.abep.org
c We recommend caution in the interpretation of the data.
Strategy declared to deal with catastrophic health expenditure. PNAUM, Brazil, 2014.
| Strategy used to deal with the expenditurec | Strategy declared to deal with catastrophic health expenditurea,b | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
| Total | A/B | C | D/E | p | |||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| % | 95%CI | % | 95%CI | % | 95%CI | % | 95%CI | ||
| Not paying the bills | 36.0 | 30.4–42.1 | 30.1 | 16.6–48.2 | 33.1 | 27.1–39.6 | 45.8 | 35.4–56.5 | 0.082 |
| Taking out a loan from financial institutions | 30.0 | 25.4–35.0 | 36.7 | 24.7–50.6 | 30.8 | 25.2–37.1 | 25.0 | 17.8–33.9 | 0.274 |
| Taking out a loan from friends or family | 19.5 | 15.5–24.4 | 11.3 | 6.8–18.3 | 20.2 | 15.1–26.6 | 21.3 | 13.7–31.7 | 0.273 |
| Selling goods | 15.4 | 11.7–20.0 | 19.9 | 9.9–36.1d | 14.1 | 9.6–20.3 | 16.5 | 10.6–24.8 | 0.626 |
| Not buying food | 13.5 | 10.8–16.7 | 6.9 | 3.3–13.7d | 12.7 | 9.8–16.4 | 18.2 | 12.0–26.5 | 0.052 |
| Saving money | 2.8 | 1.8–4.2 | 1.9 | 0.7–5.1d | 3.9 | 2.4–6.2 | 0.5 | 0.2–1.6d | 0.001 |
| Others | 0.5 | 0.2–1.6d | 1.7 | 0.4–7.1d | 0.5 | 0.2–1.6d | 0.2 | 0–1.6d | 0.053 |
a The percentages shown were weighted by the sample weights.
b Brazil Economic Classification Criterion developed by the Brazilian Research Association (CCEB 2013/ABEP). Available from: http://www.abep.org
c Not exclusive options, the respondents could indicate as many options as they wanted.
d We recommend caution in the interpretation of the data.