Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.
Benefit incidence analysis of priority public health services in NigeriaObinnaOnwujekwe & Benjamin UzochukwuHealth Policy ...
Introduction<br />Lack of information regarding the distribution of benefits of free public health services to different p...
Objectives<br />Generate new knowledge about the distribution of the benefits of government expenditures on a set of prior...
Methods<br />The study took place in two Local Government Areas (LGA) (1 rural and 1 urban) in each of Enugu and Anambra s...
The priority public health services<br />Immunisation services<br />Insecticide-treated nets<br />Anti-malaria drugs<br />...
Results<br />3281 (15%) individuals out of the 22,169 in the households consumed wholly free services<br />The detailed co...
Results continued...<br />The average half-yearly amounts paid for the public health services:<br /> 76 Naira (£0.3) for i...
Results continued...<br />There was greater consumption of free services by urbanites, residents of Anambra state, females...
Conclusion<br />It was reassuring to find that the poor had more aggregate net benefits of priority public healthcare serv...
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

Benefit incidence analysis of priority public health services in Nigeria

2 429 vues

Publié le

  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Benefit incidence analysis of priority public health services in Nigeria

  1. 1. Benefit incidence analysis of priority public health services in NigeriaObinnaOnwujekwe & Benjamin UzochukwuHealth Policy Research Group, University of Nigeria, Enugu-Campus, Enugu<br />Delivering Effective Health Care for All<br />Monday 29th March, 2010<br />
  2. 2. Introduction<br />Lack of information regarding the distribution of benefits of free public health services to different population groups<br />The information is required by policy makers and programme managers to develop and implement strategies that could ensure that such programmes preferentially benefit the poor and vulnerable groups <br />
  3. 3. Objectives<br />Generate new knowledge about the distribution of the benefits of government expenditures on a set of priority public health interventions<br />Use the findings to inform the design of interventions to improve the equity of provision of priority free pubic health services in Nigeria<br />
  4. 4. Methods<br />The study took place in two Local Government Areas (LGA) (1 rural and 1 urban) in each of Enugu and Anambra states, southeast Nigeria<br />Interviewer-administered pre-tested structured questionnaire was used to collect data about all (n=22,169) individuals from 4873 randomly selected households<br />Data analysis examined gross benefits, payments for the services and net benefits<br />
  5. 5. The priority public health services<br />Immunisation services<br />Insecticide-treated nets<br />Anti-malaria drugs<br />Ante-natal services<br />Childbirth services<br />Anti-retroviral drugs<br />Family planning services<br />Treatment for tuberculosis <br />
  6. 6. Results<br />3281 (15%) individuals out of the 22,169 in the households consumed wholly free services<br />The detailed consumption were:<br />Immunization services (2992 individuals: 14%). <br />ITNs (313 people: 1.4%)<br />Antimalarial drugs (61 people:0.3%). <br />Ante-natal services (22 people: 0.1%)<br />1,3 and 7 individuals consumed HIV treatment, childbirth and TB treatment. <br />
  7. 7. Results continued...<br />The average half-yearly amounts paid for the public health services:<br /> 76 Naira (£0.3) for immunization services, <br />4 Naira (£0.02) for ITNS<br />613 Naira (£2.6) anti-malaria drugs <br />151 Naira (£0.6) for ANC <br />486 Naira (£2.0) for childbirth services <br />4 Naira (£0.02) for treatment of TB. <br />
  8. 8. Results continued...<br />There was greater consumption of free services by urbanites, residents of Anambra state, females and poorer SES quintiles.<br />Net benefits were statistically significantly higher in rural compared to urban area and amongst poorer quintiles compared to the better-off quintiles<br />
  9. 9. Conclusion<br />It was reassuring to find that the poor had more aggregate net benefits of priority public healthcare services <br />If the coverage with these services is increased, the poor will benefit more and will be prevented from developing many diseases<br />Government and development partners should develop ways and means of scaling-up the free provision of vital public health services and implementing strategies that will be used to decrease private payments for such services.<br />

×