Table 3.
Location/Study | Study design | Expenditure per admission | Out of pocket payment | Length of stay | Quality of care | Equity of care | Up coding | Quality rating (NOS)* |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shanghai/Zhang 2010 [13] | CBA | ↔ | ↔ | ↓ | 8 | |||
Beijing/Jian 2015b [11] | CBA | ↓ | ↓ | ↔ | ↓ | ↓ | 9 | |
Beijing/Zhang 2015 [43] | CBA | ↑ | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | ↓ | 7 | |
Changsha, Hunan province/Zhang 2016 [14] | CBA | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | 8 | |||
Beijing /Poon 2017 [12] | CBA | ↓ | ↓↑ | ↓ | 9 | |||
Beijing /Ji 2017 [45] | CBA | ↓ | ↔ | ↓ | 7 | |||
Harbin, Heilongjiang province/Wang 2015 [39] | ITS | ↑ | ↔ | ↔ | ↑ | 5 | ||
Guangxi province/Wu 2015a [41] | ITS | ↑ | ↑ | ↔ | 6 | |||
Tianjin/Li 2012 [31] | BA | ↓ | ↓ | ↑ | 8 | |||
Lufeng, Yunnan province/Peng 2016 [44] | BA | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ | 6 | |||
Xiangyun, Yunnan province/Peng 2017 [46] | BA | ↓ | ↓ | 7 | ||||
Yuxi, Yunnan province/Yan 2017 [47] | BA | ↓ | ↓ | 7 | ||||
Yuxi, Yunnan province/Zhou 2018 [48] | BA | ↓ | 6 | |||||
Number of studies | 13 (6 CBA, 2ITS, 5 BA) | 5 (3 CBA, 2 ITS) | 11 (5 CBA, 2 ITS, 4 BA) | 5 (4 CBA, 1 BA) | 4 CBA | 1 ITS, 1 BA | ||
Summary of effect | Mixed | Mixed | Mild decrease | Mixed | Decrease | Increase | ||
Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Very low1 | Very low1 | Low2 | Very low1 | Moderate3 | Low2 |
High certainty: This research provides a very good indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different† is low
Moderate certainty: This research provides a good indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different† is moderate
Low certainty: This research provides some indication of the likely effect. However, the likelihood that it will be substantially different† is high
Very low certainty: This research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different† is very high
1.The evidence was by default graded as low as all studies were classified as non-randomised and observational studies, and further downgraded to very low due to the high risk of bias and inconsistency across findings
2.The evidence was by default graded as low as all studies were classified as non-randomised or observational studies
3.The evidence was by default graded as low as all studies were classified as non-randomised studies, but upgraded to moderate for consistency across findings
CBA: controlled before after study, ITS: interrupted time series study, BA: uncontrolled before-after study, *Number of items with low risk of bias in 9 total items of quality assessment using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), Direction of change: ↑up, ↓down, ↔ even