IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0000128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic evaluation of a conditional cash transfer to retain women in the continuum of care during pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period in Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Tom Palmer
  • Neha Batura
  • Jolene Skordis
  • Oliver Stirrup
  • Fedra Vanhuyse
  • Andrew Copas
  • Aloyce Odhiambo
  • Nicholas Ogendo
  • Sarah Dickin
  • Alex Mwaki
  • Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli

Abstract

There is limited evidence on the cost and cost-effectiveness of cash transfer programmes to improve maternal and child health in Kenya and other sub-Saharan African countries. This article presents the economic evaluation results of the Afya trial, assessing the costs, cost-effectiveness and equity impact of a demand-side financing intervention that promotes utilisation of maternal health services in rural Kenya. The cost of implementing the Afya intervention was estimated from a provider perspective. Cost data were collected prospectively from all implementing and non-implementing partners, and from health service providers. Cost-efficiency was analysed using cost-transfer ratios and cost per mother enrolled into the intervention. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per additional eligible antenatal care visit as a result of the intervention, when compared with standard care. The equity impact of the intervention was also assessed using a multidimensional poverty index (MPI). Programme cost per mother enrolled was International (INT)$313 of which INT$ 92 consisted of direct transfer payments, suggesting a cost transfer ratio of 2.4. Direct healthcare utilisation costs reflected a small proportion of total provider costs, amounting to INT$ 21,756. The total provider cost of the Afya intervention was INT$808,942. The provider cost per additional eligible ANC visit was INT$1,035. This is substantially higher than estimated annual health expenditure per capita at the county level of $INT61. MPI estimates suggest around 27.4% of participant households were multidimensionally poor. MPI quintiles did not significantly modify the intervention effect, suggesting the impact of the intervention did not differ by socioeconomic status. Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to conclude whether the Afya intervention was cost-effective. A simple comparison with current health expenditure in Siaya county suggests that the intervention as implemented is likely to be unaffordable. Consideration needs to be given to strengthening the supply-side of the cash transfer intervention before replication or uptake at scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom Palmer & Neha Batura & Jolene Skordis & Oliver Stirrup & Fedra Vanhuyse & Andrew Copas & Aloyce Odhiambo & Nicholas Ogendo & Sarah Dickin & Alex Mwaki & Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli, 2022. "Economic evaluation of a conditional cash transfer to retain women in the continuum of care during pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period in Kenya," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(3), pages 1-17, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0000128
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000128
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0000128
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0000128&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000128?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0000128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.