Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34382238›Full record

ArticleThe International journal of health planning and management2021

Examining the implementation of the Linda Mama free maternity program in Kenya.

Stacey Orangi, Angela Kairu, Joanne Ondera, Boniface Mbuthia, Augustina Koduah, Boniface Oyugi, Nirmala Ravishankar, Edwine Barasa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The International journal of health planning and management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Stacey OrangiHealth Economics Research Unit (HERU), KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Program, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3236-5229
Angela KairuHealth Economics Research Unit (HERU), KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Program, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0965-4460
Joanne OnderaIndependent Consultant, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5138-329X
Boniface MbuthiaThinkWell, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9029-7295
Augustina KoduahDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9915-5333
Boniface OyugiCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9550-9138
Nirmala RavishankarThinkWell, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9383-8245
Edwine BarasaHealth Economics Research Unit (HERU), KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Program, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5793-7177

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation INV-007094Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2013, Kenya introduced a free maternity policy in all public healthcare facilities. In 2016, the Ministry of Health shifted responsibility for the program, now called Linda Mama, to the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) and expanded access beyond public sector. This study aimed to examine the implementation of the Linda Mama program.

methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods cross-sectional study at the national level and in 20 purposively sampled facilities across five counties in Kenya. We collected data using in-depth interviews (n = 104), administered patient-exit questionnaires (n = 108), and carried out document reviews. Qualitative data were analysed using a framework approach while quantitative data were analysed descriptively.

resultsLinda Mama was designed and resulted in improved accountability and expand benefits. In practice however, beneficiaries did not access some services that were part of the revised benefit package. Second, out of pocket payments were still being incurred by beneficiaries. Health facilities in most counties had lost financial autonomy and had no access to reimbursements from NHIF for services provided; but those with financial autonomy were able to boost facility revenue and enhance service delivery. Further, fund disbursements from NHIF were characterised by delays and unpredictability. Implementation experiences reveal that there was inadequate communication, claim processing challenges and reimbursement rates were deemed insufficient.

conclusionsOur findings show that there are challenges associated with the implementation of the Linda Mama program and highlights the need for process evaluations for programs to track implementation, ensure continuous learning, and provide opportunities for course correcting programs' implementation.

Indexed as

Financial ManagementHealth FacilitiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth ExpendituresHumansKenyaPregnancyhealth policyimplementationmaternal healthprocess evaluationuser fees

Identifiers

PMID34382238
PMCPMC9290784

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.