Trial reportHealth policy and planning2024
A comparison between different models of delivering maternal cash transfers in Myanmar.
Trial report in Health policy and planning, 2024. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As part of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Myanmar between 2016 and 2019, we explore the performance of a maternal cash transfer program across villages assigned to different models of delivery (by government health workers vs loan agents of a non-governmental organization) and identify key factors of success. Measures include enrolment inclusion and exclusion errors, failures in payment delivery to enrolled beneficiaries (whether beneficiaries received any transfer, fraction of benefits received and whether there were delays and underpayment of benefit amounts) and whether beneficiaries remained in the program beyond eligibility. We find that women in villages where government health workers delivered cash transfers received on average two additional monthly transfers, were 19.7% more likely to receive payments on time and in-full and were 14.6% less likely to stay in the program beyond eligibility. With respect to the primary health objective of the program-child nutrition-we find that children whose mother received cash by government health workers were less likely to be chronically malnourished compared to those whose mother received cash by loan agents. Overall, the delivery of cash transfers to mothers of young children by government health workers outperforms the delivery by loan agents in rural Myanmar. Qualitative evidence suggests two key factors of success: (1) trusted presence and past interactions with targeted beneficiaries and complementarities between government health workers' expertise and the program; and (2) performance incentives based on specific health objectives along with top-down monitoring. We cannot exclude that other incentives or intrinsic motivation also played a role.
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.