Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26944258›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2016

'The money is important but all women anyway go to hospital for childbirth nowadays' - a qualitative exploration of why women participate in a conditional cash transfer program to promote institutional deliveries in Madhya Pradesh, India.

Kristi Sidney, Rachel Tolhurst, Kate Jehan, Vishal Diwan, Ayesha De Costa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Low Birth Weight, the Differentiating Risk Factor for Stunting among Preschool Children in India.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Kristi SidneyKarolinska Institutet, Public Health Sciences, Tomtebodavägen 18, Stockholm, 171 77, Sweden. kristi.sidney@ki.se.
Rachel TolhurstLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, L3 5QA, Merseyside, UK. rachel.tolhurst@lstmed.ac.uk.
Kate JehanLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, L3 5QA, Merseyside, UK. k.jehan@liverpool.ac.uk.
Vishal DiwanR. D. Gardi Medical College, Agar Road, Surasa, Ujjain, 456006, Madhya Pradesh, India. vishaldiwan@hotmail.com.
Ayesha De CostaKarolinska Institutet, Public Health Sciences, Tomtebodavägen 18, Stockholm, 171 77, Sweden. ayesha.de.costa@ki.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2005-06, only 39 % of Indian women delivered in a health facility. Given that deliveries at home increase the risk of maternal mortality, it was in this context in 2005, that the Indian Government implemented the Janani Suraksha Yojana program that incentivizes poor women to give birth in a health facility by providing them with a cash transfer upon discharge. JSY helped raise institutional delivery to 74 % in the eight years since its implementation. Despite the success of the JSY in raising institutional delivery proportions, the large number of beneficiaries (105 million), and the cost of the program, there have been few qualitative studies exploring why women participate (or not) in the program. The objective of this paper was to explore this.

methodsIn March 2013, we conducted 24 individual in-depth interviews with women who delivered within the previous 12 months in two districts of Madhya Pradesh, India. Qualitative framework analysis was used to analyze the data.

resultsOur findings suggest that women's increased participation in the program reflect a shift in the social norm. Drivers of the shift include social pressure from the Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) to deliver in a health facility, and a growing individual perception of the importance for 'safe' and 'easy' delivery which was most likely an expression of the new social norm. While the incentive was an important influence on many women's choices, others did not perceive it as an important consideration in their decision to deliver in a health facility. Many women reported procedural difficulties to receive the benefit. Retaining the cash incentive was also an issue due to out-of-pocket expenditures incurred at the facility. Non-participation was often unintentional and caused by personal circumstances, poor geographic access or driven by a perception of poor quality of care provided in program facilities.

conclusionsIn summary, while the cash incentive was important for some women in facilitating an institutional birth, the shift in social norm (possibly in part facilitated by the program) and therefore their own perceptions has played a major role in them giving birth in facilities.

Indexed as

AdultChoice BehaviorDelivery, ObstetricFemaleFinancing, GovernmentHealth FacilitiesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansIndiaMaternal Health ServicesParturitionPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient ParticipationPregnancyQualitative ResearchSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID26944258
PMCPMC4779242

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.