↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for the evaluation of a free health insurance card scheme for poor pregnant women in Mbeya region in Tanzania: a controlled-before and after study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Protocol for the evaluation of a free health insurance card scheme for poor pregnant women in Mbeya region in Tanzania: a controlled-before and after study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0905-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Josephine Borghi, Kate Ramsey, August Kuwawenaruwa, Jitihada Baraka, Edith Patouillard, Ben Bellows, Peter Binyaruka, Fatuma Manzi

Abstract

The use of demand-side financing mechanisms to increase health service utilisation among target groups and enhance service quality is gaining momentum in many low- and middle-income countries. However, there is limited evidence on the effects of such schemes on equity, financial protection, quality of care, and cost-effectiveness. A scheme providing free health insurance cards to poor pregnant women and their households was first introduced in two regions of Tanzania in 2011 and gradually expanded in 2012. A controlled before and after study will examine in one district the effect of the scheme on utilization, quality, and cost of healthcare services accessed by poor pregnant women and their households in Tanzania. Data will be collected 4 months before implementation of the scheme and 17 months after the start of implementation from a survey of 24 health facilities, 288 patients exiting consultations and 1500 households of women who delivered in the previous year in one intervention district (Mbarali). 288 observations of provider-client interactions will also be carried out. The same data will be collected from a comparison district in a nearby region. A process evaluation will ascertain how the scheme is implemented in practice and the level of implementation fidelity and potential moderators. The process evaluation will draw from impact evaluation data and from three rounds of data collection at the national, regional, district, facility and community levels. An economic evaluation will measure the cost-effectiveness of the scheme relative to current practice from a societal perspective. This evaluation will generate evidence on the impact and cost-effectiveness of targeted health insurance for pregnant women in a low income setting, as well as building a better understanding of the implementation process and challenges for programs of this nature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Uganda 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 22%
Student > Master 26 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 28 21%
Unknown 22 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 23%
Social Sciences 20 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 6%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 32 24%
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 08 July 2015.
All research outputs
#13,949,913
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,918
of 7,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,387
of 262,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#66
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,636 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 262,801 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.