From: Is the judicialization of health care bad for equity? A scoping review
Variables | Values | |
---|---|---|
Type of study | N of Authors | Single author: 7 (20%) |
Two authors: 14 (40%) | ||
More than 2 authors: 14 (40%) | ||
Type of Publication | Article: 27 (77%) | |
Chapter in an Edited Volume: 7 (20%) | ||
Policy Report: 1 (3%) | ||
Journal or Book title | Public health journals: 16 (46%) | |
Law and public policy journals: 11 (31%) | ||
Other: 8 (23%) | ||
Year | 2006–2010: 6 (17%) | |
2011–2014: 23 (66%) | ||
2014–2018: 6 (17%) | ||
Language | English: 22 (63%) | |
Spanish: 7 (20%) | ||
Portuguese: 6 (17%) | ||
Interdisciplinary | Interdisciplinary: 10 (28%) | |
Disciplinary: 25 (72%) | ||
Cases of judicialization | Country | Only Brazil: 19 (54%) |
Only Colombia: 8 (23%) | ||
Only Argentina: 3 (9%) | ||
Other single or multiple countries: 5 (14%) | ||
Empirical Equity Impact Assesment | Provides empirical data and analysis: 24 (69%) | |
Theoretical or descriptive: 11 (31%) | ||
Comparative | Comparative: 4 (11%) | |
Single case: 31 (89%) | ||
Dynamic perspective | Patterns over time: 6 (17%) | |
Static: 29 (83%) | ||
Type of Court | Highest court: 9 (26%) | |
Lower courts: 20 (57%) | ||
Both or N/A: 6 (17%) | ||
Entitlements | Only medicines: 14 (40%) | |
Other medical treatments: 21 (60%) | ||
Study design | Methods | Quantitative (models): 0 (0%) |
Descriptive statistics: 26 (74%) | ||
Qualitative: 9 (26%) | ||
Methods section: 19 (54%) | ||
No methods section: 16 (46%) | ||
Variables | Litigants’ demographics: 20 (57%) | |
Type of legal representation: 19 (54%) | ||
Type of claims: 26 (75%) | ||
Prices or costs of litigation: 11 (31%) | ||
Dataset | Totally constructed by the author(s): 20 (57%) | |
Other: 15 (43%) | ||
Effect on equity | Positive: 7 (20%) | |
Negative: 17 (49%) | ||
Ambiguous: 11 (31%) |