Trial reportHealth policy and planning2023
Can a private sector engagement intervention that prioritizes pro-poor strategies improve healthcare access and quality? A randomized field experiment in Kenya.
Trial report in Health policy and planning, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Private sector engagement in health reform has been suggested to help reduce healthcare inequities in sub-Saharan Africa, where populations with the most need seek the least care. We study the effects of African Health Markets for Equity (AHME), a cluster randomized controlled trial carried out in Kenya from 2012 to 2020 at 199 private health clinics. AHME included four clinic-level interventions: social health insurance, social franchising, SafeCare quality-of-care certification programme and business support. This paper evaluates whether AHME increased the capacity of private health clinics to serve poor clients while maintaining or enhancing the quality of care provided. At endline, clinics that received AHME were 14.5 percentage points (pp) more likely to be empanelled with the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF), served 51% more NHIF clients and served more clients from the middle three quintiles of the wealth distribution compared to control clinics. Comparing individuals living in households near AHME treatment and control clinics (N = 8241), AHME led to a 6.7-pp increase in the probability of holding any health insurance on average. We did not find any additional effect of AHME on insurance holding among poor households. We measured quality of care using a standardized patient (SP) experiment (N = 596 SP-provider interactions) where recruited and trained SPs were randomized to present as either 'not poor', and able to afford all services provided, or 'poor' by telling the provider they could only afford ∼300 Kenyan Shillings (US$3) in fees. We found that poor SPs received lower levels of both correct and unnecessary services, and AHME did not affect this. More work must be done to ensure that clients of all wealth levels receive high-quality care.
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.