Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26002611›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Does a voucher program improve reproductive health service delivery and access in Kenya?

Rebecca Njuki, Timothy Abuya, James Kimani, Lucy Kanya, Allan Korongo, Collins Mukanya, Piet Bracke, Ben Bellows, Charlotte E Warren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Rebecca NjukiCentre for Population Health Research and Management, P.O BOX 1907-00202, Nairobi, Kenya. njuki.rebecca@gmail.com.
Timothy AbuyaPopulation Council, P.O Box 17643-00200, Nairobi, Kenya. tabuya@popcouncil.org.
James KimaniPopulation Council, P.O Box 17643-00200, Nairobi, Kenya. jkimani@popcouncil.org.
Lucy KanyaPopulation Council, P.O Box 17643-00200, Nairobi, Kenya. lkanya@popcouncil.org.
Allan KorongoDepartment of Sociology, University of Nairobi, P.O Box 30197-00200, Nairobi, Kenya. allan.korongo@gmail.com.
Collins MukanyaDepartment of Sociology, University of Nairobi, P.O Box 30197-00200, Nairobi, Kenya. collinsmukanya@gmail.com.
Piet BrackeGhent University, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium. piet.bracke@ugent.be.
Ben BellowsPopulation Council, P.O Box 17643-00200, Nairobi, Kenya. bbellows@popcouncil.org.
Charlotte E WarrenPopulation Council, 4301 Connecticut Ave NW, 20008, Washington, DC, USA. cwarren@popcouncil.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent assessments on Output-Based Aid (OBA) programs have paid limited attention to the experiences and perceptions of the healthcare providers and facility managers. This study examines the knowledge, attitudes, and experiences of healthcare providers and facility managers in the Kenya reproductive health output-based approach voucher program.

methodsA total of 69 in-depth interviews with healthcare providers and facility managers in 30 voucher accredited facilities were conducted. The study hypothesized that a voucher program would be associated with improvements in reproductive health service provision. Data were transcribed and analyzed by adopting a thematic framework analysis approach. A combination of inductive and deductive analysis was conducted based on previous research and project documents.

resultsFacility managers and providers viewed the RH-OBA program as a feasible system for increasing service utilization and improving quality of care. Perceived benefits of the program included stimulation of competition between facilities and capital investment in most facilities. Awareness of family planning (FP) and gender-based violence (GBV) recovery services voucher, however, remained lower than the maternal health voucher service. Relations between the voucher management agency and accredited facilities as well as existing health systems challenges affect program functions.

conclusionsPublic and private sector healthcare providers and facility managers perceive value in the voucher program as a healthcare financing model. They recognize that it has the potential to significantly increase demand for reproductive health services, improve quality of care and reduce inequities in the use of reproductive health services. To improve program functioning going forward, there is need to ensure the benefit package and criteria for beneficiary identification are well understood and that the public facilities are permitted greater autonomy to utilize revenue generated from the voucher program.

Indexed as

AdultAttitude of Health PersonnelDelivery of Health CareFemaleFinancing, GovernmentHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHealth PromotionHealth Services AccessibilityHumansKenyaMaleMaternal Health ServicesMiddle AgedPregnancyProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID26002611
PMCPMC4443655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.