↓ Skip to main content

How equitable is the uptake of conditional cash transfers for maternity care in India? Evidence from the Janani Suraksha Yojana scheme in Odisha and Jharkhand

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
How equitable is the uptake of conditional cash transfers for maternity care in India? Evidence from the Janani Suraksha Yojana scheme in Odisha and Jharkhand
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0539-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nattawut Thongkong, Ellen van de Poel, Swati Sarbani Roy, Shibanand Rath, Tanja A. J. Houweling

Abstract

In 2005, the Indian Government introduced the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) scheme - a conditional cash transfer program that incentivizes women to deliver in a health facility - in order to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality. Our study aimed to measure and explain socioeconomic inequality in the receipt of JSY benefits. We used prospectively collected data on 3,682 births (in 2009-2010) from a demographic surveillance system in five districts in Jharkhand and Odisha state, India. Linear probability models were used to identify the determinants of receipt of JSY benefits. Poor-rich inequality in the receipt of JSY benefits was measured by a corrected concentration index (CI), and the most important drivers of this inequality were identified using decomposition techniques. While the majority of women had heard of the scheme (94% in Odisha, 85% in Jharkhand), receipt of JSY benefits was comparatively low (62% in Odisha, 20% in Jharkhand). Receipt of the benefits was highly variable by district, especially in Jharkhand, where 5% of women in Godda district received the benefits, compared with 40% of women in Ranchi district. There were substantial pro-rich inequalities in JSY receipt (CI 0.10, standard deviation (SD) 0.03 in Odisha; CI 0.18, SD 0.02 in Jharkhand) and in the institutional delivery rate (CI 0.16, SD 0.03 in Odisha; CI 0.30, SD 0.02 in Jharkhand). Delivery in a public facility was an important determinant of receipt of JSY benefits and explained a substantial part of the observed poor-rich inequalities in receipt of the benefits. Yet, even among public facility births in Jharkhand, pro-rich inequality in JSY receipt was substantial (CI 0.14, SD 0.05). This was largely explained by district-level differences in wealth and JSY receipt. Conversely, in Odisha, poorer women delivering in a government institution were at least as likely to receive JSY benefits as richer women (CI -0.05, SD 0.03). JSY benefits were not equally distributed, favouring wealthier groups. These inequalities in turn reflected pro-rich inequalities in the institutional delivery. The JSY scheme is currently not sufficient to close the poor-rich gap in institutional delivery rate. Important barriers to institutional delivery remain to be addressed and more support is needed for low performing districts and states.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 131 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 45 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 29 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 5%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 53 40%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 April 2017.
All research outputs
#14,340,404
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,442
of 1,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,961
of 307,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#27
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,918 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 307,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.