↓ Skip to main content

Out-of-pocket payment for surgery in Uganda: The rate of impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure at a government hospital

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Out-of-pocket payment for surgery in Uganda: The rate of impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure at a government hospital
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0187293
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geoffrey A. Anderson, Lenka Ilcisin, Peter Kayima, Lenard Abesiga, Noralis Portal Benitez, Joseph Ngonzi, Mayanja Ronald, Mark G. Shrime

Abstract

It is Ugandan governmental policy that all surgical care delivered at government hospitals in Uganda is to be provided to patients free of charge. In practice, however, frequent stock-outs and broken equipment require patients to pay for large portions of their care out of their own pocket. The purpose of this study was to determine the financial impact on patients who undergo surgery at a government hospital in Uganda. Every surgical patient discharged from a surgical ward at a large regional referral hospital in rural southwestern Uganda over a 3-week period in April 2016 was asked to participate. Patients who agreed were surveyed to determine their baseline level of poverty and to assess the financial impact of the hospitalization. Rates of impoverishment and catastrophic expenditure were then calculated. An "impoverishing expense" is defined as one that pushes a household below published poverty thresholds. A "catastrophic expense" was incurred if the patient spent more than 10% of their average annual expenditures. We interviewed 295 out of a possible 320 patients during the study period. 46% (CI 40-52%) of our patients met the World Bank's definition of extreme poverty ($1.90/person/day). After receiving surgical care an additional 10 patients faced extreme poverty, and 5 patients were newly impoverished by the World Bank's definition ($3.10/person/day). 31% of patients faced a catastrophic expenditure of more than 10% of their estimated total yearly expenses. 53% of the households in our study had to borrow money to pay for care, 21% had to sell possessions, and 17% lost a job as a result of the patient's hospitalization. Only 5% of our patients received some form of charity. Despite the government's policy to provide "free care," undergoing an operation at a government hospital in Uganda can result in a severe economic burden to patients and their families. Alternative financing schemes to provide financial protection are critically needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 145 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 24%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 36 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 10%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 45 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,867,593
of 23,671,454 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#70,393
of 202,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,315
of 330,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,036
of 3,617 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,671,454 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,118 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,617 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.