Facility and Community Results-Based Financing to Improve Maternal and Child Nutrition and Health in The Gambia.

Laura Ferguson, Chantelle Boudreaux, Modou Cheyassin Phall, Bakary Jallow, Malang N Fofana, Lamin Njie, Abdou Aziz Ceesay, Catherine K Gibba, Matty Njie, Mustapha Bittaye, Musa M Loum, Alhagie Sankareh, Momodou L Darboe, Yaya Barjo, Mariama Dibba, Kelly Safreed-Harmon, Günther Fink, Rifat Hasan
{"title":"Facility and Community Results-Based Financing to Improve Maternal and Child Nutrition and Health in The Gambia.","authors":"Laura Ferguson,&nbsp;Chantelle Boudreaux,&nbsp;Modou Cheyassin Phall,&nbsp;Bakary Jallow,&nbsp;Malang N Fofana,&nbsp;Lamin Njie,&nbsp;Abdou Aziz Ceesay,&nbsp;Catherine K Gibba,&nbsp;Matty Njie,&nbsp;Mustapha Bittaye,&nbsp;Musa M Loum,&nbsp;Alhagie Sankareh,&nbsp;Momodou L Darboe,&nbsp;Yaya Barjo,&nbsp;Mariama Dibba,&nbsp;Kelly Safreed-Harmon,&nbsp;Günther Fink,&nbsp;Rifat Hasan","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2022.2117320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2013, the Government of The Gambia implemented a novel results-based financing (RBF) intervention designed to improve maternal and child nutrition and health through a combination of community, facility and individual incentives. In a mixed-methods study, we used a randomized 2 × 2 study design to measure these interventions' impact on the uptake of priority maternal health services, hygiene and sanitation. Conditional cash transfers to individuals were bundled with facility results-based payments. Community groups received incentive payments conditional on completion of locally-designed health projects. Randomization occurred separately at health facility and community levels. Our model pools baseline, midline and endline exposure data to identify evidence of the interventions' impact in isolation or combination. Multivariable linear regression models were estimated. A qualitative study was embedded, with data thematically analyzed. We analyzed 5,927 household surveys: 1,939 baseline, 1,951 midline, and 2,037 endline. On average, community group interventions increased skilled deliveries by 11 percentage points, while the facility interventions package increased them by seven percentage points. No impact was found, either in the community group or facility intervention package arms on early ANC. The community group intervention led to 49, 43 and 48 percentage point increases in handwashing stations, soaps at station and water at station, respectively. No impact was found on improved sanitation facilities. The qualitative data help understand factors underlying these changes. No interaction was found between the community and facility interventions. Where demand-side barriers predominate and community governance structures exist, community group RBF interventions may be more effective than facility designs.</p>","PeriodicalId":73218,"journal":{"name":"Health systems and reform","volume":" ","pages":"2117320"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health systems and reform","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2022.2117320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In 2013, the Government of The Gambia implemented a novel results-based financing (RBF) intervention designed to improve maternal and child nutrition and health through a combination of community, facility and individual incentives. In a mixed-methods study, we used a randomized 2 × 2 study design to measure these interventions' impact on the uptake of priority maternal health services, hygiene and sanitation. Conditional cash transfers to individuals were bundled with facility results-based payments. Community groups received incentive payments conditional on completion of locally-designed health projects. Randomization occurred separately at health facility and community levels. Our model pools baseline, midline and endline exposure data to identify evidence of the interventions' impact in isolation or combination. Multivariable linear regression models were estimated. A qualitative study was embedded, with data thematically analyzed. We analyzed 5,927 household surveys: 1,939 baseline, 1,951 midline, and 2,037 endline. On average, community group interventions increased skilled deliveries by 11 percentage points, while the facility interventions package increased them by seven percentage points. No impact was found, either in the community group or facility intervention package arms on early ANC. The community group intervention led to 49, 43 and 48 percentage point increases in handwashing stations, soaps at station and water at station, respectively. No impact was found on improved sanitation facilities. The qualitative data help understand factors underlying these changes. No interaction was found between the community and facility interventions. Where demand-side barriers predominate and community governance structures exist, community group RBF interventions may be more effective than facility designs.

为改善冈比亚孕产妇和儿童营养和健康提供基于设施和社区成果的融资。
2013年,冈比亚政府实施了一项新的基于成果的筹资干预措施,旨在通过社区、设施和个人激励相结合的方式改善妇幼营养和健康。在一项混合方法研究中,我们采用随机2 × 2研究设计来衡量这些干预措施对优先孕产妇保健服务、个人卫生和环境卫生的影响。向个人提供的有条件现金转移与基于结果的机构支付捆绑在一起。社区团体以完成当地设计的保健项目为条件获得奖励。随机化分别在卫生机构和社区层面进行。我们的模型汇集了基线、中线和终末暴露数据,以确定单独或联合干预措施影响的证据。对多元线性回归模型进行了估计。一项定性研究被嵌入其中,对数据进行主题分析。我们分析了5927个家庭调查:1939个基线,1951个中线和2037个终点。平均而言,社区团体干预使熟练分娩提高了11个百分点,而成套设施干预使熟练分娩提高了7个百分点。无论是在社区团体还是在设施干预方案中,都没有发现对早期ANC的影响。社区团体干预使洗手站、洗手皂和洗手水分别增加了49、43和48个百分点。没有发现对改善卫生设施有影响。定性数据有助于理解这些变化背后的因素。没有发现社区和设施干预之间的相互作用。在需求侧障碍占主导地位和社区治理结构存在的情况下,社区群体基于基础设施的干预措施可能比设施设计更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信