A decade of conditional cash transfer programs for reproductive health in India: How did equality fare?
Conditional cash transfer programs
Erreygers index
Inequality
Inequality analysis
Janani Suraksha Yojana
Maternal health care
Wagstaff index
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 02 2022
25 02 2022
Historique:
received:
05
08
2021
accepted:
07
01
2022
entrez:
26
2
2022
pubmed:
27
2
2022
medline:
20
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Since 2005, India has implemented conditional cash transfer [CCT] programs to promote the uptake of institutional delivery services [ID]. The study aims to assess changes in wealth-based inequality in the use of ID and other maternal health care services during the first decade of Janani Suraksha Yojana and related CCT programs. Data from two Demographic and Health Surveys were used to calculate changes in service inequality from 2005 to 2015-16 in the use of three or more antenatal care [ANC] visits, ID, and postnatal care [PNC]. The changes were assessed at the national level, within high and low performing states [HPS and LPS, respectively] and within urban and rural areas of each state category. Erreygers Index [EI] and Wagstaff Index [WI], superior to concentration index, were used to gain different insights into the nature of inequality. EI is an objective measure of inequality irrespective of prevalence while WI is a combined measure of inequality and the average distribution of an indicator that puts more weight on the poor. The results suggest that wealth-based inequalities decreased significantly at the national level. For ID, both indices showed a decline in both HPS and LPS though the change in WI in HPS was insignificant. For ANC, there was a significant decrease in inequality using both indices in HPS but not in LPS. For PNC, there was a significant decrease in inequality using both indices in HPS, and when using WI in LPS, but not when using EI in LPS. Overall, the first decade of India's CCT programs saw an impressive reduction in EI for ID but less so for WI suggesting that the benefit of CCTs did not go disproportionately to the poor, which suggests that there is a need to reduce or eliminate the evident leakages. The improvement in uptake and inequality in ANC and PNC was not at par with ID, stressing the need to place greater focus on the continuum of care. The urban rural difference in HPS versus LPS in the changes in inequality reveals that infrastructure is important for CCTs to be more effective.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Since 2005, India has implemented conditional cash transfer [CCT] programs to promote the uptake of institutional delivery services [ID]. The study aims to assess changes in wealth-based inequality in the use of ID and other maternal health care services during the first decade of Janani Suraksha Yojana and related CCT programs.
METHODS
Data from two Demographic and Health Surveys were used to calculate changes in service inequality from 2005 to 2015-16 in the use of three or more antenatal care [ANC] visits, ID, and postnatal care [PNC]. The changes were assessed at the national level, within high and low performing states [HPS and LPS, respectively] and within urban and rural areas of each state category. Erreygers Index [EI] and Wagstaff Index [WI], superior to concentration index, were used to gain different insights into the nature of inequality. EI is an objective measure of inequality irrespective of prevalence while WI is a combined measure of inequality and the average distribution of an indicator that puts more weight on the poor.
RESULTS
The results suggest that wealth-based inequalities decreased significantly at the national level. For ID, both indices showed a decline in both HPS and LPS though the change in WI in HPS was insignificant. For ANC, there was a significant decrease in inequality using both indices in HPS but not in LPS. For PNC, there was a significant decrease in inequality using both indices in HPS, and when using WI in LPS, but not when using EI in LPS.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the first decade of India's CCT programs saw an impressive reduction in EI for ID but less so for WI suggesting that the benefit of CCTs did not go disproportionately to the poor, which suggests that there is a need to reduce or eliminate the evident leakages. The improvement in uptake and inequality in ANC and PNC was not at par with ID, stressing the need to place greater focus on the continuum of care. The urban rural difference in HPS versus LPS in the changes in inequality reveals that infrastructure is important for CCTs to be more effective.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35216569
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-12563-9
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-12563-9
pmc: PMC8876831
doi:
Substances chimiques
Lipopolysaccharides
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
394Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Health Econ. 2015 Sep;43:154-69
pubmed: 26302940
BMC Public Health. 2012 Dec 05;12:1048
pubmed: 23217140
Int J Equity Health. 2021 Jan 7;20(1):24
pubmed: 33413412
Indian J Public Health. 2009 Jul-Sep;53(3):177-82
pubmed: 20108884
J Health Popul Nutr. 2012 Dec;30(4):464-71
pubmed: 23304913
Int J Equity Health. 2017 Mar 10;16(1):48
pubmed: 28283045
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Dec;123:1-6
pubmed: 25462599
Health Policy Plan. 2017 Feb;32(1):79-90
pubmed: 27515405
Health Policy Plan. 2018 Jun 1;33(5):645-653
pubmed: 29659831
J Health Econ. 2002 Jul;21(4):627-41
pubmed: 12146594
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jan 25;18(1):40
pubmed: 29370798
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Dec;107(3):271-6
pubmed: 19846090
Lancet. 2005 Feb 26-Mar 4;365(9461):813-7
pubmed: 15733726
Indian J Community Med. 2009 Jan;34(1):15-8
pubmed: 19876449
Glob Health Action. 2015 Jul 07;8:27427
pubmed: 26160769
J Health Popul Nutr. 2009 Apr;27(2):249-58
pubmed: 19489419
Epidemiology. 2015 Sep;26(5):670-2
pubmed: 26133020
J Health Econ. 2013 May;32(3):659-70
pubmed: 23522656
Lancet. 2011 Jan 22;377(9762):295-6; author reply 296-7
pubmed: 21256374
Lancet. 2010 Jun 5;375(9730):2009-23
pubmed: 20569841
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Jun 23;14(7):
pubmed: 28644405