BioMed research international · 2017
Household Financial Burden and Poverty Impacts of Cancer Treatment in Vietnam.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hoang Van Minh, Pham Cam Phuong, Vu Quynh Mai, Ngo Thuy Trang, Tran Dinh Ha, Bui Dieu, Pham Xuan Dung, Tran Dang Khoa, Mai Trong Khoa
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This paper aims to analyze the household financial burden and poverty impacts of cancer treatment in Vietnam.
METHODS: Under the "ASEAN CosTs in ONcology" study design, three major specialized cancer hospitals were employed to assemble the Vietnamese data. Factors of socioeconomic, direct, and indirect costs of healthcare were collected prospectively through both individual interviews and hospital financial records.
RESULTS: The rates of catastrophic expenditure based on the cut-off points of 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% of household's income were 82.6%, 73.7%, 64.7%, and 56.9%, respectively. 37.4% of the households with patient were impoverished by the treatment costs for cancer. The statistically significant correlates of the impoverishment problem were higher among older patients (40-60 years: 1.77, 95% CI 1.14-2.73; above 60 years: 1.75, 95% CI 1.03-2.98); poorer patients (less than 100% national income: 29, 95% CI 18.6-45.24; less than 200% national income: 2.89, 95% CI 1.69-4.93); patients who underwent surgery alone (receiving nonsurgery treatment: 2.46, 95% CI 1.32-4.59; receiving multiple treatments: 2.4, 95% CI 1.38-4.17).
CONCLUSIONS: Lots of households were pushed into poverty due to their expenditure on cancer care; more actions are urgently needed to improve financial protection to the vulnerable groups.
METHODS: Under the "ASEAN CosTs in ONcology" study design, three major specialized cancer hospitals were employed to assemble the Vietnamese data. Factors of socioeconomic, direct, and indirect costs of healthcare were collected prospectively through both individual interviews and hospital financial records.
RESULTS: The rates of catastrophic expenditure based on the cut-off points of 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% of household's income were 82.6%, 73.7%, 64.7%, and 56.9%, respectively. 37.4% of the households with patient were impoverished by the treatment costs for cancer. The statistically significant correlates of the impoverishment problem were higher among older patients (40-60 years: 1.77, 95% CI 1.14-2.73; above 60 years: 1.75, 95% CI 1.03-2.98); poorer patients (less than 100% national income: 29, 95% CI 18.6-45.24; less than 200% national income: 2.89, 95% CI 1.69-4.93); patients who underwent surgery alone (receiving nonsurgery treatment: 2.46, 95% CI 1.32-4.59; receiving multiple treatments: 2.4, 95% CI 1.38-4.17).
CONCLUSIONS: Lots of households were pushed into poverty due to their expenditure on cancer care; more actions are urgently needed to improve financial protection to the vulnerable groups.