Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26825366›Full record

ArticleJournal of health, population, and nutrition2016

Statewide program to promote institutional delivery in Gujarat, India: who participates and the degree of financial subsidy provided by the Chiranjeevi Yojana program.

Kristi Sidney, Veena Iyer, Kranti Vora, Dileep Mavalankar, Ayesha De Costa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kristi SidneyPublic Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Widerströmska, Tomtebodavägen 18A, plan 4, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. kristi.sidney@ki.se.
Veena IyerIndian Institute of Public Health Gandhinagar, Public Health Foundation of India, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. veenaiyer@iiphg.org.
Kranti VoraIndian Institute of Public Health Gandhinagar, Public Health Foundation of India, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. kvora@iiphg.org.
Dileep MavalankarIndian Institute of Public Health Gandhinagar, Public Health Foundation of India, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. dmavalankar@iiphg.org.
Ayesha De CostaPublic Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Widerströmska, Tomtebodavägen 18A, plan 4, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. ayesha.de.costa@ki.se.
Indian Institute of Public Health Gandhinagar · INPublic Health Foundation of India · INKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Chiranjeevi Yojana (CY) is a large public-private partnership program in Gujarat, India, under which the state pays private sector obstetricians to provide childbirth services to poor and tribal women. The CY was initiated statewide in 2007 because of the limited ability of the public health sector to provide emergency obstetric care and high out-of-pocket expenditures in the private sector (where most qualified obstetricians work), creating financial access barriers for poor women. Despite a million beneficiaries, there have been few reports studying CY, particularly the proportion of vulnerable women being covered, the expenditures they incur in connection with childbirth, and the level of subsidy provided to beneficiaries by the program.

methodsCross-sectional facility based the survey of participants in three districts of Gujarat in 2012-2013. Women were interviewed to elicit sociodemographic characteristics, out-of-pocket expenditures, and CY program details. Descriptive statistics, chi square, and a multivariable logistic regression were performed.

resultsOf the 901 women surveyed in 129 facilities, 150 (16 %) were CY beneficiaries; 336 and 415 delivered in government and private facilities, respectively. Only 36 (24 %) of the 150 CY beneficiaries received a completely cashless delivery. Median out-of-pocket for vaginal/cesarean delivery among CY beneficiaries was $7/$71. The median degree of subsidy for women in CY who delivered vaginally/cesarean was 85/71 % compared to out-of-pocket expenditure of $44/$208 for vaginal/cesarean delivery paid by non-program beneficiaries in the private health sector.

conclusionsCY beneficiaries experienced a substantially subsidized childbirth compared to women who delivered in non-accredited private facilities. However, despite the government's efforts at increasing access to delivery services for poor women in the private sector, uptake was low and very few women experienced a cashless delivery. While the long-term focus remains on strengthening the public sector's ability to provide emergency obstetric care, the CY program is a potential means by which the state can ensure its poor mothers have access to necessary care if uptake is increased.

Indexed as

Health Facilities, ProprietaryMedical AssistancePatient Acceptance of Health CarePovertyState Health PlansAdultAsian PeopleCesarean SectionCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery, ObstetricFemaleGovernment ProgramsHealth Care SurveysHealth ExpendituresHealth Services Accessibility

Identifiers

PMID26825366
PMCPMC5026006
OpenAlexW2283878607

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.