ArticlePloS one2019
Evaluation of the effectiveness and equity of the maternity protection reform in Chile from 2000 to 2015.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of health policies and the COVID-19 pandemic on exclusive breastfeeding in Chile during 2009-2020.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Sleep problems are related to commuting accidents rather than to workplace accidents.BMC public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccording to the International Labor Organization, Maternity Protection (MP) policies try to harmonize child care and women's paid work, without affecting family health and economic security. Chile Law 20.545 (2011) increased benefits for economically active women and reduced requirements for accessing these benefits. The goals of the reform included: 1) to increase MP coverage; and 2) to reduce inequities in access to the benefits.
methodThis study uses two data sources. First, using individual data routinely collected from 2000 to 2015, yearly MP coverage access over time was calculated. Second, using national representative household surveys collected before and after the Law (2009 and 2013), coverage and a set of measures of inequality were estimated. To compare changes over time, we used non-experimental, before-after intervention design for independent samples. For each variable, we estimated comparative proportions at 95% confidence interval before and after the intervention. Additionally, we included multivariate and propensity score analysis.
resultsBetween 2000 and 2015, MP coverage grew from 24.4% to 44.8%. Using comparable 2009 and 2013 survey data, we observed the same trend, with 31.6% of estimated MP coverage in 2009, escalating to 39.5% in 2013. We conclude that: 1) after the reform, there was an increase in MP coverage; and, 2) there was no significant reduction of inequities in the distribution of MP benefits. DISCUSSION/
conclusionFew scientific evaluations of MP reforms have been conducted worldwide; even fewer including an equity analysis. This study provides an empirically-based evaluation of MP reform from both a population-level and an equity-focused perspective. We conclude that this reform needs to be complemented with other policies to ensure maternity protection in terms of access and equity in a country with deep socioeconomic stratification.
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.