儿童健康干预措施的经济激励与覆盖范围:一项系统评价与荟萃分析

Financial incentives and coverage of child health interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Bassani Diego G, Arora Paul, Wazny Kerri, Gaffey Michelle F, Lenters Lindsey, Bhutta Zulfiqar A

出版信息

BMC Public Health. 2013;13 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S30. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-S3-S30. Epub 2013 Sep 17.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Financial incentives are widely used strategies to alleviate poverty, foster development, and improve health. Cash transfer programs, microcredit, user fee removal policies and voucher schemes that provide direct or indirect monetary incentives to households have been used for decades in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and more recently in Southeast Asia. Until now, no systematic review of the impact of financial incentives on coverage and uptake of health interventions targeting children under 5 years of age has been conducted. The objective of this review is to provide estimates on the effect of six types of financial incentive programs: (i) Unconditional cash transfers (CT), (ii) Conditional cash transfers (CCT), (iii) Microcredit (MC), (iv) Conditional Microcredit (CMC), (v) Voucher schemes (VS) and (vi) User fee removal (UFR) on the uptake and coverage of health interventions targeting children under the age of five years.

METHODS

We conducted systematic searches of a series of databases until September 1st, 2012, to identify relevant studies reporting on the impact of financial incentives on coverage of health interventions and behaviors targeting children under 5 years of age. The quality of the studies was assessed using the CHERG criteria. Meta-analyses were undertaken to estimate the effect when multiple studies meeting our inclusion criteria were available.

RESULTS

Our searches resulted in 1671 titles identified 25 studies reporting on the impact of financial incentive programs on 5 groups of coverage indicators: breastfeeding practices (breastfeeding incidence, proportion of children receiving colostrum and early initiation of breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding for six months and duration of breastfeeding); vaccination (coverage of full immunization, partial immunization and specific antigens); health care use (seeking healthcare when child was ill, visits to health facilities for preventive reasons, visits to health facilities for any reason, visits for health check-up including growth control); management of diarrhoeal disease (ORS use during diarrhea episode, continued feeding during diarrhea, healthcare during diarrhea episode) and other preventive health interventions (iron supplementation, vitamin A, zinc supplementation, preventive deworming). The quality of evidence on the effect of financial incentives on breastfeeding practices was low but seems to indicate a potential positive impact on receiving colostrum, early initiation of breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding and mean duration of exclusive breastfeeding. There is no effect of financial incentives on immunization coverage although there was moderate quality evidence of conditional cash transfers leading to a small but non-significant increase in coverage of age-appropriate immunization. There was low quality evidence of impact of CCT on healthcare use by children under age 5 (Risk difference: 0.14 [95%CI: 0.03; 0.26]) as well as low quality evidence of an effect of user fee removal on use of curative health services (RD=0.62 [0.41; 0.82]).

CONCLUSIONS

Financial incentives may have potential to promote increased coverage of several important child health interventions, but the quality of evidence available is low. The more pronounced effects seem to be achieved by programs that directly removed user fees for access to health services. Some indication of effect were also observed for programs that conditioned financial incentives on participation in health education and attendance to health care visits. This finding suggest that the measured effect may be less a consequence of the financial incentive and more due to conditionalities addressing important informational barriers.

摘要

背景

经济激励措施是减轻贫困、促进发展和改善健康状况的广泛使用的策略。现金转移计划、小额信贷、取消用户付费政策以及向家庭提供直接或间接货币激励的代金券计划,在拉丁美洲、撒哈拉以南非洲地区已经使用了数十年,最近在东南亚地区也开始应用。到目前为止,尚未对经济激励措施对针对5岁以下儿童的卫生干预措施的覆盖率和采用率的影响进行系统评价。本综述的目的是提供六种类型经济激励计划效果的估计:(i)无条件现金转移(CT),(ii)有条件现金转移(CCT),(iii)小额信贷(MC),(iv)有条件小额信贷(CMC),(v)代金券计划(VS)和(vi)取消用户付费(UFR)对针对5岁以下儿童的卫生干预措施的采用率和覆盖率的影响。

方法

我们对一系列数据库进行了系统检索,直至2012年9月1日,以识别报告经济激励措施对针对5岁以下儿童的卫生干预措施覆盖率和行为影响的相关研究。使用CHERG标准评估研究质量。当有多篇符合纳入标准的研究时,进行荟萃分析以估计效果。

结果

我们的检索共识别出1671个标题,其中25项研究报告了经济激励计划对5组覆盖率指标的影响:母乳喂养做法(母乳喂养发生率、接受初乳的儿童比例、母乳喂养的早期开始、六个月纯母乳喂养及母乳喂养持续时间);疫苗接种(全程免疫、部分免疫和特定抗原的覆盖率);卫生保健利用(儿童患病时寻求医疗保健、因预防原因前往卫生设施就诊、因任何原因前往卫生设施就诊、包括生长监测在内的健康检查就诊);腹泻病管理(腹泻发作期间口服补液盐的使用、腹泻期间继续喂养、腹泻发作期间的医疗保健)以及其他预防性卫生干预措施(铁补充、维生素A、锌补充、预防性驱虫)。关于经济激励措施对母乳喂养做法影响的证据质量较低,但似乎表明对接受初乳、母乳喂养的早期开始、纯母乳喂养和纯母乳喂养平均持续时间有潜在的积极影响。经济激励措施对免疫接种覆盖率没有影响,尽管有中等质量的证据表明有条件现金转移导致适龄免疫接种覆盖率有小幅但不显著的增加。有低质量的证据表明有条件现金转移对5岁以下儿童的卫生保健利用有影响(风险差异:0.14 [95%置信区间:0.03;0.26]),以及取消用户付费对治疗性卫生服务利用有影响的低质量证据(风险差异=0.62 [0.41;0.82])。

结论

经济激励措施可能有潜力促进多项重要儿童卫生干预措施覆盖率的提高,但现有证据质量较低。直接取消获得卫生服务的用户付费的计划似乎能取得更显著的效果。对于将经济激励与参与健康教育和参加卫生保健就诊挂钩的计划,也观察到了一些效果迹象。这一发现表明,所测得的效果可能较少是经济激励的结果,而更多是由于解决重要信息障碍的条件所致。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/574f/3847540/26cb986c83c6/1471-2458-13-S3-S30-1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索