Equity of national publicly funded health insurance schemes under the universal health coverage agenda: a systematic review of studies conducted in Africa.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of publicly funded health insurance schemes (PFHIS) is the major strategy to drive progress and achievement of universal health coverage (UHC) by 2030. We appraised evidence on the equity of insurance schemes across Africa. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published studies that assessed equity in health insurance schemes implemented under the UHC agenda in Africa. Seven databases, Web of Science, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and World Bank eLibrary, were searched; we operationalized the PROGRESS-Plus (place of residence; race/ethnicity/culture/language; occupation; gender/sex religion; education; socioeconomic status; social capital) equity framework to assess equity areas. RESULTS: Forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study, in which 90% assessed equity by socioeconomic status. Evidence showed that rural residents, those self-employed or working in the informal sector, men, those with lower educational attainment, and the poor were less likely to be covered by health insurance schemes. Broadly, the insurance schemes, especially, community-based health insurance (CBI) schemes improved utilization by disadvantaged groups, however, the same groups were less likely to benefit from health services. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on equity of PFHIS is mixed, however, CBI schemes seem to offer more equitable coverage and utilization of essential health services in Africa.

Effect of Electronic Prescribing Compared to Paper-Based (Handwritten) Prescribing on Primary Medication Adherence in an Outpatient Setting: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Electronic prescriptions are often created and delivered electronically to the pharmacy while paper-based/handwritten prescriptions may be delivered to the pharmacy by the patients. These differences in the mode of creation and transmission of the two types of prescription could influence the rate at which outpatients fill new prescriptions of previously untried medications. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate literatures to determine the impact of electronic prescribing compared with paper-based/handwritten prescribing on primary medication adherence in an outpatient setting. METHODS: The keywords and phrases "outpatients," "e-prescriptions," "paper-based prescriptions," and "primary medication adherence" were combined with their relevant synonyms and medical subject headings. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on EMBASE, CINAHL, and MEDLINE databases, and Google Scholar. The results of the search were screened and selected using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) was used for quality appraisal of included studies. Data relevant to the objective of the review were extracted and analyzed through narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 10 original studies were included in the final review, including 1 prospective randomized study and 9 observational studies. Nine of the 10 studies were performed in the United States. Four of the studies indicated that electronic prescribing significantly increases initial medication adherence, while four of the studies suggested the opposite. The remaining two studies found no significant difference in primary medication adherence between the two methods of prescribing. The variations in the studies did not allow the homogeneity required for meta-analysis to be achieved. CONCLUSION: The conflicting findings relating to the efficacy of primary medication adherence across both systems demonstrate the need for a standardized measure of medication adherence. This would help further determine the respective benefits of both approaches. Future research should also be conducted in different countries to give a more accurate representation of adherence.