Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962294›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2022

Economic evaluation of a conditional cash transfer to retain women in the continuum of care during pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period in Kenya.

Tom Palmer, Neha Batura, Jolene Skordis, Oliver Stirrup, Fedra Vanhuyse, Andrew Copas, Aloyce Odhiambo, Nicholas Ogendo, Sarah Dickin, Alex Mwaki and 1 more

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Tom PalmerInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9526-0045
Neha BaturaInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8175-8125
Jolene SkordisInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8633-0208
Oliver StirrupInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8705-3281
Fedra VanhuyseStockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9283-1914
Andrew CopasInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Aloyce OdhiamboSafe Water and AIDS Project (SWAP), Kisumu, Kenya.
Nicholas OgendoSafe Water and AIDS Project (SWAP), Kisumu, Kenya.
Sarah DickinStockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0437-3755
Alex MwakiSafe Water and AIDS Project (SWAP), Kisumu, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9453-1587
Hassan Haghparast-BidgoliInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6365-2944

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is limited evidence on the cost and cost-effectiveness of cash transfer programmes to improve maternal and child health in Kenya and other sub-Saharan African countries. This article presents the economic evaluation results of the Afya trial, assessing the costs, cost-effectiveness and equity impact of a demand-side financing intervention that promotes utilisation of maternal health services in rural Kenya. The cost of implementing the Afya intervention was estimated from a provider perspective. Cost data were collected prospectively from all implementing and non-implementing partners, and from health service providers. Cost-efficiency was analysed using cost-transfer ratios and cost per mother enrolled into the intervention. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per additional eligible antenatal care visit as a result of the intervention, when compared with standard care. The equity impact of the intervention was also assessed using a multidimensional poverty index (MPI). Programme cost per mother enrolled was International (INT)$313 of which INT$ 92 consisted of direct transfer payments, suggesting a cost transfer ratio of 2.4. Direct healthcare utilisation costs reflected a small proportion of total provider costs, amounting to INT$ 21,756. The total provider cost of the Afya intervention was INT$808,942. The provider cost per additional eligible ANC visit was INT$1,035. This is substantially higher than estimated annual health expenditure per capita at the county level of $INT61. MPI estimates suggest around 27.4% of participant households were multidimensionally poor. MPI quintiles did not significantly modify the intervention effect, suggesting the impact of the intervention did not differ by socioeconomic status. Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to conclude whether the Afya intervention was cost-effective. A simple comparison with current health expenditure in Siaya county suggests that the intervention as implemented is likely to be unaffordable. Consideration needs to be given to strengthening the supply-side of the cash transfer intervention before replication or uptake at scale.

Identifiers

PMID36962294
PMCPMC10021150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read53
identifiers read9
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.