OBJECTIVES: To identify where vouchers have been used for reproductive health (RH) services, to what extent RH voucher programmes have been evaluated, and whether the programmes have been effective. METHODS: A systematic search of the peer review and grey literature was conducted to identify RH voucher programmes and evaluation findings. Experts were consulted to verify RH voucher programme information and identify further programmes and studies not found in the literature search. Studies were examined for outcomes regarding targeting, costs, knowledge, utilization, quality, and population health impact. Included studies used cross-sectional, before-and-after and quasi-experimental designs. RESULTS: Thirteen RH voucher programmes fitting established criteria were identified. RH voucher programmes were located in Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Kenya (2), Korea, India, Indonesia, Nicaragua (3), Taiwan, and Uganda. Among RH voucher programmes, 7 were quantitatively evaluated in 15 studies. All evaluations reported some positive findings, indicating that RH voucher programmes increased utilization of RH services, improved quality of care, and improved population health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The potential for RH voucher programmes appears positive; however, more research is needed to examine programme effectiveness using strong study designs. In particular, it is important to see stronger evidence on cost-effectiveness and population health impacts, where the findings can best direct governments and external funders.
OBJECTIVES: To identify where vouchers have been used for reproductive health (RH) services, to what extent RH voucher programmes have been evaluated, and whether the programmes have been effective. METHODS: A systematic search of the peer review and grey literature was conducted to identify RH voucher programmes and evaluation findings. Experts were consulted to verify RH voucher programme information and identify further programmes and studies not found in the literature search. Studies were examined for outcomes regarding targeting, costs, knowledge, utilization, quality, and population health impact. Included studies used cross-sectional, before-and-after and quasi-experimental designs. RESULTS: Thirteen RH voucher programmes fitting established criteria were identified. RH voucher programmes were located in Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Kenya (2), Korea, India, Indonesia, Nicaragua (3), Taiwan, and Uganda. Among RH voucher programmes, 7 were quantitatively evaluated in 15 studies. All evaluations reported some positive findings, indicating that RH voucher programmes increased utilization of RH services, improved quality of care, and improved population health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The potential for RH voucher programmes appears positive; however, more research is needed to examine programme effectiveness using strong study designs. In particular, it is important to see stronger evidence on cost-effectiveness and population health impacts, where the findings can best direct governments and external funders.
Authors: Ellen Van de Poel; Gabriela Flores; Por Ir; Owen O'Donnell; Eddy Van Doorslaer Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Charles S Wiysonge; Elizabeth Paulsen; Simon Lewin; Agustín Ciapponi; Cristian A Herrera; Newton Opiyo; Tomas Pantoja; Gabriel Rada; Andrew D Oxman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-09-11
Authors: Timothy Abuya; Rebecca Njuki; Charlotte E Warren; Jerry Okal; Francis Obare; Lucy Kanya; Ian Askew; Ben Bellows Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-07-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rebecca Njuki; Jerry Okal; Charlotte E Warren; Francis Obare; Timothy Abuya; Lucy Kanya; Chi-Chi Undie; Ben Bellows; Ian Askew Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Ben Bellows; Catherine Kyobutungi; Martin Kavao Mutua; Charlotte Warren; Alex Ezeh Journal: Health Policy Plan Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 3.344
Authors: Ka Chun Chong; Hong Fung; Carrie Ho Kwan Yam; Patsy Yuen Kwan Chau; Tsz Yu Chow; Benny Chung Ying Zee; Eliza Lai Yi Wong; Maggie Haitian Wang; Eng Kiong Yeoh Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-06-26 Impact factor: 3.295