Skip to main content

Table 3 General trends in the field of health care judicialization and equity in Latin America

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%)