ArticleHealth policy and planning2024
Exploring health equity in Lesotho's Child Grants Programme.
Article in Health policy and planning, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using cash transfers to promote child health equity: an analysis of Lesotho's Child Grants Program.Health policy and planning · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Despite their growing popularity, little is known about how cash transfers (CTs) can affect health equity in targeted communities. Lesotho's Child Grants Programme (CGP) is an unconditional CT targeting poor and vulnerable households with children. Started in 2009, the CGP is one of Lesotho's key programmes in developing the country's social protection system. Using the CGP's early phases as a case study, this research aims to capture how programme stakeholders understood and operationalized the concept of health equity in Lesotho's CGP. The qualitative analysis relied on the triangulation of findings from a desk review and semi-structured key informant interviews with programme stakeholders. The programme documents were coded deductively and the interview transcripts inductively. Both materials were analysed thematically before triangulating their findings. We explored determining factors for differences or disagreements within a theme according to the programme's chronology, the stakeholders' affiliations and their role(s) in the CGP. The definitions of health equity in the context of the CGP reflected an awareness among stakeholders of these issues and their determinants but also the challenges raised by the complex (or even debated) nature of the concept. The most common definition of this concept focused on children's access to health services for the most disadvantaged households, suggesting a narrow, targeted approach to health equity as targeting disadvantages. Yet, even the most common definition of this concept was not fully translated into the programme, especially in the day-to-day operations and reporting at the local level. This operationalization gap affected the study of selected health spillover effects of the CGP on health equity and might have undermined other programme impacts related to specific health disadvantages or gaps. As equity objectives become more prominent in CTs, understanding their meaning and translation into concrete, observable and measurable applications in programmes are essential to support impact.
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.