| Literature DB >> 33087391 |
Krishna D Rao1, Shivani Kachwaha2, Avril Kaplan3, David Bishai4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) have become an important policy tool for increasing demand for key maternal and child health services in low/middle-income countries. Yet, these programs have had variable success in increasing service use. Understanding beneficiary preferences for design features of CCTs can increase program effectiveness.Entities:
Keywords: health economics; health policy; health systems
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33087391 PMCID: PMC7580051 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003033
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Glob Health ISSN: 2059-7908
Attributes included in DCE for assessing willingness to participate in conditional cash transfer programme
| Attribute | Level | Description |
| 1. Antenatal care visits during pregnancy | 4 (reference) | Number of antenatal care visits mother would need to make to a health centre during her pregnancy; WHO and Government of India norm is eight visits |
| 2. Growth-monitoring and immunisation visits per year for children 0–3 years | 4 (reference) | Number of visits per year to the village nutrition centre for growth monitoring and immunisations |
| 3. Time spent on each visit (hours) | 1 (reference) | Total duration of visit for antenatal care or growth monitoring; it includes travel time, waiting and consultation |
| 4. Health benefit for mother and child | Poor (reference) | Perceived health benefit to mother or child from antenatal or growth-monitoring/immunisation services |
| 5. Cash transfer amount (INR) | 50 (reference) | Cash amount given to mother for fulfilling CCT programme conditionalities |
CCT, conditional cash transfer; DCE, discrete choice experiment; INR, Indian rupee.
Figure 1Sample task card presented to study respondents.
Background characteristics of respondents
| All | Low use of maternal and child health services | |||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Household size | 6.1 | 2.44 | 6.1 | 2.35 |
| Mother’s age (years) | 26.6 | 4.44 | 26.8 | 4.65 |
| Mother can read and write (%) | 59 | 53 | ||
| Number children below 3 years of age | 1.1 | 0.29 | 1.1 | 0.27 |
| Age of youngest child (months) | 16.4 | 7.75 | 16.7 | 8.34 |
| Poor household (%) | 40 | 43 | ||
| ANC visits during last pregnancy (%) | ||||
| None | 7 | 12 | ||
| 1–3 | 65 | 78 | ||
| 4–8 | 26 | 8 | ||
| 9–15 | 2 | 2 | ||
| 100 | 100 | |||
| Children with no growth monitoring in last 12 months (%) | 15 | 28 | ||
| Travel time to nutrition (AWC) centre (minutes) | 10.7 | 11.28 | 11.5 | 11.40 |
| N (observations) | 405 | 218 | ||
AWC, Anganwadi Center.
Mixed logit regression results for discrete choice experiment
| Attributes | Level | (1) | WTA (95% CI) | (2) | (3) | |||
| Only attributes | Interaction with low service use | Interaction with poor | ||||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||
| Cash transfer amount (‘000 Indian rupees) | Cash | 0.357** | 0.393** | 0.338** | ||||
| (0.014) | (0.022) | −0.017 | ||||||
| Antenatal care visits | 8 visits | 0.032 | 0.123 | 0.057 | ||||
| (Reference: 4 visits) | (0.063) | (0.099) | (0.082) | |||||
| 12 visits | −0.070 | −0.031 | −0.045 | |||||
| (0.065) | (0.099) | (0.084) | ||||||
| Growth-monitoring visits/year | 8 visits | −0.206** | 0.118 | 144* | −0.382** | 0.352 | −0.322** | −0.262 |
| (Reference: 4 visits) | (0.066) | (0.424) | (54 to 233) | (0.105) | (0.217) | −0.086 | (0.210) | |
| 12 visits | −0.107* | −0.001 | 38* | −0.214** | −0.004 | −0.148* | −0.003 | |
| (0.063) | (0.096) | (−5 to 80) | (0.095) | (0.123) | (0.081) | (0.110) | ||
| Duration of visit (hours) | 4 hours | −0.344** | 0.001 | 321* | −0.351** | −0.036 | −0.353** | −0.015 |
| (Reference: 1 hour) | (0.062) | (0.150) | (206 to 437) | (0.096) | (0.146) | (0.081) | (0.168) | |
| 8 hours | −0.178** | 0.014 | 71* | −0.168* | 0.001 | −0.133* | 0.029 | |
| (0.061) | (0.206) | (23 to 120) | (0.095) | (0.251) | (0.079) | (0.219) | ||
| Health benefit received | Fair | 0.406** | −0.009 | −1137 | 0.485** | 0.046 | 0.495** | −0.048 |
| (Reference: poor) | (0.063) | (0.166) | (−41 to 643) | (0.097) | (0.380) | (0.081) | (0.262) | |
| Good | 1.019** | 0.599** | −2854 | 1.054** | 0.731** | 1.204** | 0.682** | |
| (0.072) | (0.104) | (–3225 to –2484) | (0.114) | (0.126) | (0.098) | (0.120) | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Cash X | 0.186** | 0.426 | 0.337** | 0.444** | ||||
| (0.057) | (0.051) | (0.068) | (0.055) | |||||
| Growth monitoring: 8 visits X | 0.397** | 0.425 | 0.483** | −0.206 | ||||
| (0.167) | (0.337) | (0.177) | (0.557) | |||||
| Growth monitoring: 12 visits X | 0.285* | 0.049 | 0.237 | −0.059 | ||||
| (0.150) | (0.242) | (0.159) | (0.254) | |||||
| Health benefit: fair X | 0.096 | 0.423** | 0.01 | 0.250 | ||||
| (0.152) | (0.211) | (0.155) | (0.327) | |||||
| Health benefit: good X | 0.445** | −0.378 | −0.074 | 0.381 | ||||
| (0.195) | (0.268) | (0.185) | (0.304) | |||||
| Observations | 7290 | 7290 | 7290 | |||||
| Log likelihood | −1779 | −1704 | −1701 | |||||
| AIC | 3577 | 3372 | 3437 | |||||
(1)*p<0.10, **p<0.05; (2) SD is the SD ofthe random coefficient, only SD for statistically significant attributes shown; (3) SE in parenthesis; (4) WTA estimates are in rupees (US$1=INR70), WTA estimated only for statisticallysignificant attributes; (5) to be concise, interaction results are only shownfor statistically significant interaction.
*WTA estimates are per visit.
AIC, Akaike information criterion; INR, Indian rupee; WTA, willing to accept.
Figure 2Relative importance of conditional cash transfer programme attributes.
Figure 3Difference in the predicted probability of selecting a CCT programme having a particular attribute and the reference program profile.*. *Reference program profile: no cash, four antenatal and growth-monitoring visits, 1 hour visit duration and fair health benefit. ANC, antenatal care; CCT, conditional cash transfer.