A review of assistive product prices in 12 countries.
Natália Hedlund Jardim, Vinicius Delgado Ramos, Irene Calvo and 2 others
PMID 42136990WHAT IT FOUND
Across 12 countries, assistive products were least affordable relative to national income in low-income countries, and self care and continence products were the most expensive domain.
Key findings
01In 12 countries, lower income level was associated with higher average GDP-standardized annual price.
02Self care and continence had the highest average GDP-standardized annual price at 9.3%, and cognition had the lowest at 0.4%.
03Price data coverage was below 50% in Mozambique, Senegal, Sudan, and Zambia, while Brazil, Canada, China, India, Italy, Japan, Norway, and Thailand had over 75% coverage.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 12 countries were included, with 2 to 4 countries in each income group, so the country averages are not stable. Data were incomplete in 11 of the 12 countries, especially low- and lower-middle-income countries, so cross-country comparisons are limited. Mozambique, Senegal, Sudan, and Zambia had coverage below 50%, and many products in Mozambique were not available, which may reflect collection time and local supply rather than true price. Focal points used different sources, including providers, suppliers, open markets, and custom-made products, so prices may not be directly comparable. Reported service life varied within product categories across countries. This affected annual price calculations. The review used lowest available prices to compare product categories, not full market prices or budgeting data.
Declared interests
The authors declared financial support for the work. The research was funded by the Government of Ireland.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read these price tiers as proof that a product is affordable for your patients. The review used lowest available prices from 12 countries, and coverage was incomplete in many countries, especially low-income settings.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →