Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38478543›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Validating the implementation of an indicator reporting policies and laws on free public maternal health-related services in the era of universal health coverage: A multi-country cross-sectional study.

Magdalene A Odikro, Ernest Kenu, Richard M Adanu, Delia A B Bandoh, Mabel Berrueta, Suchandrima Chakraborty, Jewel Gausman, Nizamuddin Khan, Ana Langer, Carolina Nigri and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

16 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Magdalene A OdikroDepartment of Epidemiology and Disease Control, University of Ghana School of Public Health, Greater Accra, Ghana.
Ernest KenuDepartment of Epidemiology and Disease Control, University of Ghana School of Public Health, Greater Accra, Ghana.
Richard M AdanuDepartment of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, University of Ghana School of Public Health, Accra, Ghana.
Delia A B BandohDepartment of Epidemiology and Disease Control, University of Ghana School of Public Health, Greater Accra, Ghana.
Mabel BerruetaInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Suchandrima ChakrabortyPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Jewel GausmanWomen and Health Initiative, Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9880-2591
Nizamuddin KhanPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Ana LangerWomen and Health Initiative, Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Carolina NigriInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Veronica PingrayInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Sowmya RameshPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Niranjan SaggurtiPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Paula VázquezPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Caitlin R WilliamsPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-4925-869X
R Rima JolivetWomen and Health Initiative, Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1440-4722
Population Council Institute · INUniversity of Ghana · GHHarvard University · USInstituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria · ARUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of universal health coverage (UHC) encompasses both access to essential health services and freedom from financial harm. The World Health Organization's Maternal Newborn Child and Adolescent Health (MNCAH) Policy Survey collects data on policies that have the potential to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality. The indicator, "Are the following health services provided free of charge at point-of-use in the public sector for women of reproductive age?", captures the free provision of 13 key categories of maternal health-related services, to measure the success of UHC implementation with respect to maternal health. However, it is unknown whether it provides a valid measure of the provision of free care. Therefore, this study compared free maternal healthcare laws and policies against actual practice in three countries. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a cross-sectional study in four districts/provinces in Argentina, Ghana, and India. We performed desk reviews to identify free care laws and policies at the country level and compared those with reports at the global level. We conducted exit interviews with women aged 15-49 years who used a component service or their accompanying persons, as well as with facility chief financial officers or billing administrators, to determine if women had out-of-pocket expenditures associated with accessing services. For designated free services, prevalence of expenditures at the service level for women and reports by financial officers of women ever having expenditures associated with services designated as free were computed. These three sources of data (desk review, surveys of women and administrators) were triangulated, and chi-square analysis was conducted to determine if charges were levied differentially by standard equity stratifiers. Designation of services as free matched what was reported in the MNCAH Policy Survey for Argentina and Ghana. In India, insecticide-treated bed nets and testing and treatment for syphilis were only designated as free for selected populations, differing from the WHO MNCAH Policy Survey. Among 1046, 923, and 1102 women and accompanying persons who were interviewed in Argentina, Ghana, and India, respectively, the highest prevalence of associated expenditures among women who received a component service in each setting was for cesarean section in Argentina (26%, 24/92); family planning in Ghana (78.4%, 69/88); and postnatal maternal care in India (94.4%, 85/90). The highest prevalence of women ever having out of pocket expenditures associated with accessing any free service reported by financial officers was 9.1% (2/22) in Argentina, 64.1% (93/145) in Ghana, and 29.7% (47/158) in India. Across the three countries, self-reports of out of pocket expenditures were significantly associated with district/province and educational status of women. Additionally, wealth quintile in Argentina and age in India were significantly associated with women reporting out of pocket expenditures.

conclusionsFree care laws were largely accurately reported in the global MNCAH policy database. Notably, we found that women absorbed both direct and indirect costs and made both formal and informal payments for services designated as free. Therefore, the policy indicator does not provide a valid reflection of UHC in the three settings.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesUniversal Health InsuranceAdolescentCesarean SectionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMaleMaternal HealthPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID38478543
PMCPMC10936804
OpenAlexW4392763177

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.