Reducing the Cost of Remoteness: Community-Based Health Interventions and Fertility Choices

Herrera‐Almanza, Catalina; Rosales-Rueda, María

doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102365

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results indicate that the ANC service utilization is lower by 4.1 pp for the people living over 2 km of any healthcare centre compared to their counterparts living within 2 km of a centre. The negative effect of distance reflects the fact that pregnant women struggle to visit a distant health centre (Herrera‐Almanza & Rosales‐Rueda, 2020; Lu & Slusky, 2019). Unfortunately, the effect is again neither practically large nor statistically significant.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proximity to healthcare centres and service use: The case of Community Clinics in Bangladesh

Hasan

Akter

Jahan³

et al. 2023

Econ of Transit and Inst Chang

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate how distance from healthcare centres affects service utilization for women and children. Relying on five rounds of recent nationally representative demographic and health survey data from Bangladesh, our logistic regression analyses reveal that proximity to healthcare centres barely affects the utilization of healthcare services for women and children, even in rural areas. Interestingly, this indicates that the government's preferred Community Clinics have not significantly contributed to the country's uptake of healthcare services. The low-service utilization may result from their poor standard at the local health centres indicating that improving the service quality can help Bangladesh raise the uptake of healthcare services.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proximity to healthcare centres and service use: The case of Community Clinics in Bangladesh

Hasan

Akter

Jahan³

et al. 2023

Econ of Transit and Inst Chang

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the

Q

‐test, there was no significant amount of heterogeneity in the true outcomes (

Q(3)=2.27

p=0.52

{\hat{\tau }}^{2}=0.00

{I}^{2}=0.00

%). One study (Herrera‐Almanza & Rosales‐Rueda, 2018) had a relatively large weight compared to the rest of the studies (i.e.,

\text{weight}\ge 3/k

, so a weight at least three times as large as having equal weights across studies). However, this was also the only study assessed as having a low risk of bias.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several authors mentioned that these interventions can generalise to a broad range of settings as long as implementers consider the mechanisms of the theory of change, and how these may be adapted to different contexts (e.g., Gurley, 2020; Memon et al, 2015; Oyo‐Ita, 2020). That being said in some cases, strategies may generalise only to similar settings, especially in areas where demand‐side barriers may exist (Herrera‐Almanza & Rosales‐Rueda, 2018). For example, Pramanik et al (2020) and Rahman et al (2008) suggested their results would only apply in rural areas, while Morris et al (2004) questioned whether their results would generalise to areas that were less severely disadvantaged.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Jain

Shisler

Lane

et al. 2022

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immunisation is one of the most cost-effective interventions to prevent and control life-threatening infectious diseases. Nonetheless, rates of routine vaccination of children in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) are strikingly low or stagnant.In 2019, an estimated 19.7 million infants did not receive routine immunisations.Community engagement interventions are increasingly being emphasised in international and national policy frameworks as a means to improve immunisation coverage and reach marginalised communities. This systematic review examines the

show abstract

“…We excluded articles at full-text for not satisfying the inclusion criteria by country (129), study type (evaluation study) (304), evaluation method (213), outcome (235) and community engagement type (172). We ultimately identified 61 impact evaluations (table 2)31–92 that assessed the effects of community engagement interventions on outcomes related to routine child immunisation in LMICs. We identified one publication in Spanish,45 with all others in English.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jain¹,

Shisler²,

Lane

et al. 2022

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo support evidence informed decision-making, we systematically examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community engagement interventions on routine childhood immunisation outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and identify contextual, design and implementation features associated with effectiveness.DesignMixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources21 databases of academic and grey literature and 12 additional websites were searched in May 2019 and May 2020.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included experimental and quasi-experimental impact evaluations of community engagement interventions considering outcomes related to routine child immunisation in LMICs. No language, publication type, or date restrictions were imposed.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent researchers extracted summary data from published reports and appraised quantitative risk of bias using adapted Cochrane tools. Random effects meta-analysis was used to examine effects on the primary outcome, full immunisation coverage.ResultsOur search identified over 43 000 studies and 61 were eligible for analysis. The average pooled effect of community engagement interventions on full immunisation coverage was standardised mean difference 0.14 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.23, I2=94.46). The most common source of risk to the quality of evidence (risk of bias) was outcome reporting bias: most studies used caregiver-reported measures of vaccinations received by a child in the absence or incompleteness of immunisation cards. Reasons consistently cited for intervention success include appropriate intervention design, including building in community engagement features; addressing common contextual barriers of immunisation and leveraging facilitators; and accounting for existing implementation constraints. The median intervention cost per treated child per vaccine dose (excluding the cost of vaccines) to increase absolute immunisation coverage by one percent was US$3.68.ConclusionCommunity engagement interventions are successful in improving outcomes related to routine child immunisation. The findings are robust to exclusion of studies assessed as high risk of bias.

show abstract

Reducing the Cost of Remoteness: Community-Based Health Interventions and Fertility Choices

Cited by 9 publications

References 39 publications

Proximity to healthcare centres and service use: The case of Community Clinics in Bangladesh

Proximity to healthcare centres and service use: The case of Community Clinics in Bangladesh

Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About