↓ Skip to main content

Do beneficiaries’ views matter in healthcare purchasing decisions? Experiences from the Nigerian tax-funded health system and the formal sector social health insurance program of the National Health…

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Do beneficiaries’ views matter in healthcare purchasing decisions? Experiences from the Nigerian tax-funded health system and the formal sector social health insurance program of the National Health Insurance Scheme
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0711-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ogochukwu Ibe, Ayako Honda, Enyi Etiaba, Nkoli Ezumah, Kara Hanson, Obinna Onwujekwe

Abstract

Purchasing is a health financing function that involves the transfer of pooled resources to providers on behalf of a covered population. Little attention has been paid to the extent to which the views of that population  are reflected in purchasing decisions. This article explores how purchasers in two financing mechanisms: the Formal Sector Social Health Insurance Programme (FSSHIP) operating under the Nigerian National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), and the tax-funded health system perform their roles in light of their responsibilities to the populations. A case study approach was adopted in which each financing mechanism is a case. Sixteen (16) in-depth interviews with purchasers and eight (8) focus group discussions with beneficiaries were held. Agency and organizational behavioural theories were used to characterise the purchaser-citizen relationships. A deductive framework approach was used to assess whether actions identified in a model of 'ideal' strategic purchasing actions were undertaken in each case. For both cases, mechanisms exist to reflect people's health needs in purchasing decisions, including quantitative and qualitative needs assessment, mechanisms to raise awareness of benefit entitlements and allow choice. However, purchasers do not use the mechanisms to effectively engage with and hold themselves accountable to the people. In the tax-funded system, weak information systems and unclear communication channels between the purchaser and citizens constrain assessment of needs; while timeliness of health information and poor engagement practices of Health Maintenance Organisations (HMOs) are the main constraints in FSSHIP. Inadequate information sharing in both mechanisms limits beneficiaries' awareness of entitlements. Although beneficiaries of FSSHIP can choose providers, lack of information on the quality of services offered by providers constrains rational decision-making and the inability to change HMOs reduces HMO responsiveness to beneficiary needs. Responsiveness and accountability to beneficiaries are undervalued by purchasers in both financing mechanisms. In the tax-funded system, civil society organisations can facilitate engagement and accountability of purchasers and the people. In FSSHIP, NHIS needs to provide stronger stewardship of HMOs to promote effective engagement with members. Furthermore, the NHIS should introduce mechanisms that allow FSSHIP members to choose their own HMO, which could encourage HMOs to be more responsive to members.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 25%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Student > Bachelor 5 4%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 42 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 23%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 49 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 19 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,102,417
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#572
of 2,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,128
of 450,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#18
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 450,734 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 60% of its contemporaries.