↓ Skip to main content

Inequality in the use of maternal and child health services in the Philippines: do pro-poor health policies result in more equitable use of services?

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inequality in the use of maternal and child health services in the Philippines: do pro-poor health policies result in more equitable use of services?
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0473-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karlo Paolo P. Paredes

Abstract

The Philippines failed to achieve its Millennium Development Goal (MDG) commitment to reduce maternal deaths by three quarters. This, together with the recently launched Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reinforces the need for the country to keep up in improving reach of maternal and child health (MCH) services. Inequitable use of health services is a risk factor for the differences in health outcomes across socio-economic groups. This study aims to explore the extent of inequities in the use of MCH services in the Philippines after pro-poor national health policy reforms. This paper uses data from the 2008 and 2013 Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) in the Philippines. Socio-economic inequality in MCH services use was measured using the concentration index. The concentration index was also decomposed in order to examine the contribution of different factors to the inequalities in the use of MCH services. In absolute figures, women who delivered in facilities increased from 2008 to 2013. Little change was noted for women who received complete antenatal care and caesarean births. Facility deliveries remain pro-rich although a pro-poor shift was noted. Women who received complete antenatal care services also remain concentrated to the rich. Further, there is a highly pro-rich inequality in caesarean deliveries which did not change much from 2008 to 2013. Household income remains as the most important contributor to the resulting inequalities in health services use, followed by maternal education. For complete antenatal care use and deliveries in government facilities, regional differences also showed to have important contribution. The findings suggest inequality in the use of MCH services had limited pro-poor improvements. Household income remains to be the major driver of inequities in MCH services use in the Philippines. This is despite the recent national government-led subsidy for the health insurance of the poor. The highly pro-rich caesarean deliveries may also warrant the need for future studies to determine the prevalence of medically unindicated caesarean births among high-income women. Not applicable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Unknown 134 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 44 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 16%
Social Sciences 13 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 4%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 50 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 January 2017.
All research outputs
#4,294,327
of 8,976,941 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#519
of 792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,359
of 310,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#26
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,976,941 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 51st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.