ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2012
Are the poor differentially benefiting from provision of priority public health services? A benefit incidence analysis in Nigeria.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants of willingness to pay for health services: a systematic review of contingent valuation studies.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Pooled it
- Immunization, urbanization and slums - a systematic review of factors and interventions.BMC public health · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Inequities in Household Out-Of-Pocket Spending Among Urban Slum Dwellers in Southeast Nigeria.International journal of public health · 2025Article
- Are institutional deliveries equitable in the southern states of India? A benefit incidence analysis.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- Inequality in benefit distribution of reducing the outpatient cost-sharing: evidence from the outpatient pooling scheme in China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Equity assessment of maternal and child healthcare benefits utilization and distribution in public healthcare facilities in Bangladesh: a benefit incidence analysis.Population health metrics · 2023Article
- Equity assessment of childhood immunisation at national and subnational levels in Myanmar: a benefit incidence analysis.BMJ global health · 2022Article
- Ten-year changes in children's oral health disparities: Findings from the 3rd and 4th oral health surveys in Beijing, China.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2021Article
- Improving equity in the distribution and financing of health services in Mauritius, a small island state with deeply rooted welfare state standards.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- Inequity and benefit incidence analysis in healthcare use among Syrian refugees in Egypt.Conflict and health · 2021Article
- Association of siblings' presence and oral health-related quality of life among children: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2021Article
- Understanding equity of institutional delivery in public health centre by level of care in India: an assessment using benefit incidence analysis.International journal for equity in health · 2020Article
- Methods to promote equity in health resource allocation in low- and middle-income countries: an overview.Globalization and health · 2020Review
- Benefit incidence analysis in public health facilities in India: utilization and benefits at the national and state levels.International journal for equity in health · 2019Article
- Implementation of free maternal and child healthcare policies: assessment of influence of context and institutional capacity of health facilities in South-east Nigeria.Global health action · 2018Article
- Understanding Internal Accountability in Nigeria's Routine Immunization System: Perspectives From Government Officials at the National, State, and Local Levels.International journal of health policy and management · 2017Article
- Health-Care Workers' Perspectives on Ebola Virus Vaccine: A Focus Group and In-Depth Interview Interventional Study.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2016Article
- Who benefited from the New Rural Cooperative Medical System in China? A case study on Anhui Province.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- Towards making efficient use of household resources for appropriate prevention of malaria: investigating households' ownership, use and expenditures on ITNs and other preventive tools in Southeast Nigeria.BMC public health · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe paper presents evidence about the distribution of the benefits of public expenditures on a subset of priority public health services that are supposed to be provided free of charge in the public sector, using the framework of benefit incidence analysis.
methodsThe study took place in 2 rural and 2 urban Local Government Areas from Enugu and Anambra states, southeast Nigeria. A questionnaire was used to collect data on use of the priority public health services by all individuals in the households (n=22,169). The level of use was disaggregated by socio-economic status (SES), rural-urban location and gender. Benefits were valued using the cost of providing the service. Net benefit incidence was calculated by subtracting payments made for services from the value of benefits.
resultsThe results showed that 3,281 (14.8%) individuals consumed wholly free services. There was a greater consumption of most free services by rural dwellers, females and those from poorer SES quintiles (but not for insecticide-treated nets and ante-natal care services). High levels of payment were observed for immunisation services, insecticide-treated nets, anti-malarial medicines, antenatal care and childbirth services, all of which are supposed to be provided for free. The net benefits were significantly higher for the rural residents, males and the poor compared to the urban residents, females and better-off quintiles.
conclusionIt is concluded that coverage of all of these priority public health services fell well below target levels, but the poorer quintiles and rural residents that are in greater need received more benefits, although not so for females. Payments for services that are supposed to be delivered free of charge suggests that there may have been illegal payments which probably hindered access to the public health services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.