ArticleHealth policy and planning2021
Assessing the performance of beneficiary targeting in Brazil's More Doctors Programme.
Article in Health policy and planning, 2021. 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.
- Brazil's more doctors programme and infant health outcomes: a longitudinal analysis.Human resources for health · 2021Article
- Impact of Brazil's More Doctors Program on hospitalizations for primary care sensitive cardiovascular conditions.SSM - population health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many countries employ strategies that rest on the use of an explicitly defined set of criteria to identify underserved communities. Yet, we know relatively little about the performance of community-level targeting in large-scale health programmes. To address this gap, we examine the performance of community targeting in the More Doctors Programme (MDP). Our analysis covers all 5570 municipalities in the period between 2013 and 2017 using publicly available data. We first calculate the rate at which vulnerable municipalities enrolled in the MDP. Next, we consider two types of mistargeting: (1) proportion of vulnerable municipalities that did not have any MDP physicians (i.e. under-coverage municipalities) and (2) proportion of MDP enrolees that did not fit the vulnerability criteria (i.e. non-target municipalities). We found that almost 70% of vulnerable municipalities received at least one MDP physician between 2013 and 2017; whereas non-target municipalities constituted 33% of beneficiaries. Targeting performance improved over time. Non-target municipalities had the highest levels of socioeconomic development and greater physician availability. The poverty rate among under-coverage municipalities was almost six times that in non-target municipalities. Under-coverage municipalities had the lowest primary care physician availability. They were also smaller and more sparsely populated. We also found small differences in the political party alignments of mayors and the President between under-coverage and non-target municipalities. Our results suggest that using community-level targeting approaches in large-scale health programmes is a complex process. Programmes using these approaches may face substantial challenges in beneficiary targeting. Our results highlight that policymakers who consider using these approaches should carefully study various municipal characteristics that may influence the implementation process, including the level of socioeconomic development, health supply factors, population characteristics and political party alignments.
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.