| Literature DB >> 31825301 |
Shehrin Shaila Mahmood1, Mark Amos2, Shahidul Hoque1, Mohammad Nahid Mia1, Asiful Haidar Chowdhury1,3, Syed Manzoor Ahmed Hanifi1, Mohammad Iqbal1, William Stones4, Saseendran Pallikadavath2, Abbas Bhuiya2.
Abstract
Background: Improving maternal health is a major development goal, with ambitious targets set for high-mortality countries like Bangladesh. Following a steep decline in the maternal mortality ratio over the past decade in Bangladesh, progress has plateaued at 196/100,000 live births. A voucher scheme was initiated in 2007 to reduce financial, geographical and institutional barriers to access for the poorest.Objective: The current paper reports the effect of vouchers on the use of continuum of maternal care.Entities:
Keywords: Maternal health; antenatal care; cluster analysis; continuum of care; maternal health voucher scheme; poor pregnant women; postnatal care
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31825301 PMCID: PMC6913632 DOI: 10.1080/16549716.2019.1701324
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Health Action ISSN: 1654-9880 Impact factor: 2.640
Benefit package of MHVS.
| Description of Services | Reimbursement to provider (BDT) | Incentive to beneficiaries |
|---|---|---|
| Registration of an eligible woman | 20 | |
| ANC: Two blood and 2 urine tests | (35x4) = 140 | Free service |
| Three ANC check-ups (at facility) | (50x3) = 150 | Free service+ transportation (BDT 300 for 3 visits) |
| One PNC check-up (at facility) | 50 | Free service+ transportation (BDT 100) |
| Normal delivery | 300 | BDT 2000 (at facility)/BDT 500 (home with CSBA) + transportation (BDT 100) |
| Medicines | 100 | Free medicine |
| Forceps delivery, manual removal of placenta, dilation and curettage, or vacuum extraction | 1000 | Free service + emergency transportation to referral facility, if needed (ceiling BDT 500) |
| Medicines for management of eclampsia | 1000 | |
| C-section and medicine | 6000 | BDT 2000 (qualified provider). |
Except for medicines and registration incentives, 50% of provider reimbursement goes to a ‘seed fund’ used to improve the quality of care at the facility. The remaining 50% is distributed among people directly involved in providing services. This does not apply to private facilities where providers receive full reimbursement.
ANC, delivery, and PNC use among the different utilisation clusters, 2017.
| Variables | Category | Cluster 1 (High utilisation 22.9%) | Cluster 2 (High utilisation, except ANC 6.1%) | Cluster 3 (Sufficient ANC, else low 37.3%) | Cluster 4 (Overall low utilisation 33.3%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voucher receipt (n = 2400)*** | Yes | 43.5 (199) | 5.0 (23) | 41.7 (191) | 9.8 (44) |
| No | 15.4 (299) | 6.5 (127) | 36.2 (703) | 41.9 (814) | |
| ANC (n = 2400)** | 3 or more | 37.9 (510) | 0.00 (0) | 62.1 (835) | 0.00 (0) |
| 1–2 | 0.0 (0) | 18.9 (113) | 0.0 (0) | 81.0 (484) | |
| None | 0.0 (0) | 9.6 (44) | 1.1 (5) | 89.1(408) | |
| Skilled birth attendant(n = 2400)** | Yes | 49.9(519) | 13.3 (139) | 27.1(282) | 9.6 (99) |
| No | 0.0 (0) | 0.0 (0) | 46.6 (634) | 53.4 (726) | |
| Facility birth(n = 2400)** | Yes | 74.1 (519) | 19.8 (139) | 4.9 (34) | 1.1 (8) |
| No | 0.0 (0) | 0.0 (0) | 52.3 (889) | 47.6 (810) | |
| Had a postnatal check within 2 weeks (n = 2400)** | Yes | 58.1 (531) | 15.5 (142) | 21.0 (192) | 5.3 (49) |
| No | 0.0 (0) | 0.0 (0) | 48.5 (720) | 51.5 (765) | |
| Socioeconomic status (n = 2400)*** | Highest quintile (better-off) | 41.8 (221) | 9.6(51) | 35.9 (190) | 12.5 (66) |
| 4th Quintile | 27.7 (96) | 6.5 (23) | 38.3 (132) | 27.3 (94) | |
| 3rd quintile | 16.7 (97) | 5.8(34) | 39.0(227) | 38.3(233) | |
| 2nd quintile | 17.8(85) | 3.7(19) | 41.0(159) | 37.3(251) | |
| lowest quintile (poorest) | 8.3(39) | 4.1(19) | 33.8(159) | 53.6(251) | |
| Age group of mothers (n = 2400)*** | Under 20 | 22.1(50) | 4.9(11) | 40.3(90) | 32.6 (73) |
| 20–24 | 27.8 (213) | 6.3 (49) | 38.0(292) | 27.8 (213) | |
| 25–29 | 22.4 (160) | 5.4 (38) | 37.6(268) | 34.5(246) | |
| 30–34 | 21.4(103) | 6.7(32) | 35.8(172) | 35.8(172) | |
| 35 and more | 9.0 (20) | 8.2 (18) | 36.8 (80) | 45.8 (99) | |
| Education of mothers*** | Illiterate | 11.6 (75) | 3.7 (24) | 36.1 (233) | 48.4 (312) |
| Primary | 167 (16.9) | 7.1 (70) | 39.5 (391) | 36.4 (360) | |
| Secondary | 36.6 (251) | 6.9 (47) | 37.8 (259) | 18.5 (127) | |
| Higher secondary | 62.1(52) | 5.4 (5) | 29.7 (25) | 2.7 (2) | |
| Graduate | 80.0 (19) | 6.6 (1) | 6.6 (1) | 6.6 (1) | |
| Distance to health facility (n = 2400)*** | Municipality (city center) | 20.4 (23) | 8.4 (9) | 26.5 (29) | 44.5 (49) |
| Non-municipality but within 5km of health facility | 35.9 (157) | 5.5 (24) | 37.5 (164) | 20.9 (91) | |
| Non-municipality and beyond 5km of health facility | 19.1 (355) | 6.1 (114) | 38.4 (712) | 36.2 (672) | |
| Birth order of current birth (n = 2400)*** | 1 | 31.8 (232) | 6.5 (48) | 39.5 (288) | 22.0 (161) |
| 2 | 25.0 (175) | 5.9 (41) | 35.2 (245) | 33.9 (236) | |
| 3 | 20.3 (93) | 8.2 (37) | 40.1 (184) | 31.4 (143) | |
| 4 | 12.4 (32) | 4.8 (12) | 38.2 (99) | 44.6 (116) | |
| ≥5 | 6.3 (16) | 3.4 (9) | 34.1 (86) | 56.3 (143) |
***significant at 5% level. **significant at 10% level.
Figure 1.Cluster profile for 4 clusters solution by care utilisation pattern.
Figure 2.Predicted probabilities of cluster membership within all women.
Figure 3.Predicted probabilities of cluster membership for bottom 2 asset quintiles.