ArticleBMJ open2021
Impact of household shocks on access to healthcare services in Kenya: a propensity score matching analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preconception health knowledge, attitudes and behavioural intentions among adults: a multi-country study.Reproductive health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study examines the effects of household shocks on access to healthcare services in Kenya. Shocks are adverse events that lead to loss of household income and/or assets. DESIGN AND
settingThe study used data from the Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey 2015/2016, a nationally representative cross-sectional survey. A propensity score matching approach was applied for the analysis.
participantsThe study sample included 16 297 individuals from households that had experienced shocks (intervention) and those that had not experienced shocks (control) within the last 12 months preceding the survey. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome of interest was access to healthcare services based on an individual's perceived need for health intervention.
resultsThe results indicate that shocks reduce access to healthcare services when household members are confronted with an illness. We observed that multiple shocks in a household exacerbate the risk of not accessing healthcare services. Asset shocks had a significant negative effect on access to healthcare services, whereas the effect of income shocks was not statistically significant. This is presumably due to the smoothing out of income shocks through the sale of assets or borrowing. However, considering the time when the shock occurred, we observed mixed results that varied according to the type of shock.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that shocks can limit the capacity of households to invest in healthcare services, emphasising their vulnerability to risks and inability to cope with the consequences. These results provoke a debate on the causal pathway of household economic shocks and health-seeking behaviour. The results suggest a need for social protection programmes to integrate mechanisms that enable households to build resilience to shocks. A more viable approach would be to expedite universal health insurance to cushion households from forgoing needed healthcare when confronted with unanticipated risks.
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.