Gary L Darmstadt1,2, Yingjie Weng3, Kevin T Pepper1, Victoria C Ward1, Kala M Mehta1,4, Evan Borkum5, Jason Bentley3, Hina Raheel1, Anu Rangarajan5, Debarshi Bhattacharya6, Usha Kiran Tarigopula6, Priya Nanda6, Swetha Sridharan5, Dana Rotz5, Suzan L Carmichael1,2, Safa Abdalla1, Wolfgang Munar7. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 2. Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA. 3. Quantitative Sciences Unit, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 5. Mathematica, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. 6. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Delhi, India. 7. Department of Global Health, George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Government of Bihar (GoB) in India, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and several non-governmental organisations launched the Ananya program aimed to support the GoB to improve reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health and nutrition (RMNCHN) statewide. Here we summarise changes in indicators attained during the initial two-year pilot phase (2012-2013) of implementation in eight focus districts of approximately 28 million population, aimed to inform subsequent scale-up. METHODS: The quasi-experimental impact evaluation included statewide household surveys at two time points during the pilot phase: January-April 2012 ("baseline") including an initial cohort of beneficiaries and January-April 2014 ("midline") with a new cohort. The two arms were: 1) eight intervention districts, and 2) a comparison arm comprised of the remaining 30 districts in Bihar where Ananya interventions were not implemented. We analysed changes in indicators across the RMNCHN continuum of care from baseline to midline in intervention and comparison districts using a difference-in-difference analysis. RESULTS: Indicators in the two arms were similar at baseline. Overall, 40% of indicators (20 of 51) changed significantly from baseline to midline in the comparison districts unrelated to Ananya; two-thirds (n = 13) of secular indicator changes were in a direction expected to promote health. Statistically significant impact attributable to the Ananya program was found for 10% (five of 51) of RMNCHN indicators. Positive impacts were most prominent for mother's behaviours in contraceptive utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: The Ananya program had limited impact in improving health-related outcomes during the first two-year period covered by this evaluation. The program's theories of change and action were not powered to observe statistically significant differences in RMNCHN indicators within two years, but rather aimed to help inform program improvements and scale-up. Evaluation of large-scale programs such as Ananya using theory-informed, equity-sensitive (including gender), mixed-methods approaches can help elucidate causality and better explain pathways through which supply- and demand-side interventions contribute to changes in behaviour among the actors involved in the production of population-level health outcomes. Evidence from Bihar indicates that deep structural constraints in health system organisation and delivery of interventions pose substantial limitations on behaviour change among health care providers and beneficiaries. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02726230.
BACKGROUND: The Government of Bihar (GoB) in India, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and several non-governmental organisations launched the Ananya program aimed to support the GoB to improve reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health and nutrition (RMNCHN) statewide. Here we summarise changes in indicators attained during the initial two-year pilot phase (2012-2013) of implementation in eight focus districts of approximately 28 million population, aimed to inform subsequent scale-up. METHODS: The quasi-experimental impact evaluation included statewide household surveys at two time points during the pilot phase: January-April 2012 ("baseline") including an initial cohort of beneficiaries and January-April 2014 ("midline") with a new cohort. The two arms were: 1) eight intervention districts, and 2) a comparison arm comprised of the remaining 30 districts in Bihar where Ananya interventions were not implemented. We analysed changes in indicators across the RMNCHN continuum of care from baseline to midline in intervention and comparison districts using a difference-in-difference analysis. RESULTS: Indicators in the two arms were similar at baseline. Overall, 40% of indicators (20 of 51) changed significantly from baseline to midline in the comparison districts unrelated to Ananya; two-thirds (n = 13) of secular indicator changes were in a direction expected to promote health. Statistically significant impact attributable to the Ananya program was found for 10% (five of 51) of RMNCHN indicators. Positive impacts were most prominent for mother's behaviours in contraceptive utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: The Ananya program had limited impact in improving health-related outcomes during the first two-year period covered by this evaluation. The program's theories of change and action were not powered to observe statistically significant differences in RMNCHN indicators within two years, but rather aimed to help inform program improvements and scale-up. Evaluation of large-scale programs such as Ananya using theory-informed, equity-sensitive (including gender), mixed-methods approaches can help elucidate causality and better explain pathways through which supply- and demand-side interventions contribute to changes in behaviour among the actors involved in the production of population-level health outcomes. Evidence from Bihar indicates that deep structural constraints in health system organisation and delivery of interventions pose substantial limitations on behaviour change among health care providers and beneficiaries. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02726230.
Authors: Roy Head; Joanna Murray; Sophie Sarrassat; Will Snell; Nicolas Meda; Moctar Ouedraogo; Laurent Deboise; Simon Cousens Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Mickey Chopra; Henrik Axelson; Peter Berman; Ties Boerma; Jennifer Bryce; Flavia Bustreo; Eleonora Cavagnero; Giorgio Cometto; Bernadette Daelmans; Andres de Francisco; Helga Fogstad; Neeru Gupta; Laura Laski; Joy Lawn; Blerta Maliqi; Elizabeth Mason; Catherine Pitt; Jennifer Requejo; Ann Starrs; Cesar G Victora; Tessa Wardlaw Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-06-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Emma Sacks; Paul A Freeman; Kwame Sakyi; Mary Carol Jennings; Bahie M Rassekh; Sundeep Gupta; Henry B Perry Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.413
Authors: Victoria C Ward; Hina Raheel; Yingjie Weng; Kala M Mehta; Priyanka Dutt; Radharani Mitra; Padmapriya Sastry; Anna Godfrey; Melissa Shannon; Sara Chamberlain; Rajani Kaimal; Suzan L Carmichael; Jason Bentley; Safa Abdalla; Kevin T Pepper; Tanmay Mahapatra; Sridhar Srikantiah; Evan Borkum; Anu Rangarajan; Swetha Sridharan; Dana Rotz; Priya Nanda; Usha Kiran Tarigopula; Yamini Atmavilas; Debarshi Bhattacharya; Gary L Darmstadt Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2020-12-19 Impact factor: 4.413