↓ Skip to main content

How much does community-based targeting of the ultra-poor in the health sector cost? Novel evidence from Burkina Faso

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 357)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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 much does community-based targeting of the ultra-poor in the health sector cost? Novel evidence from Burkina Faso
Published in
Health Economics Review, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13561-018-0205-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yvonne Beaugé, Jean-Louis Koulidiati, Valéry Ridde, Paul Jacob Robyn, Manuela De Allegri

Abstract

Targeting efforts aimed at increasing access to care for the poorest by reducing to a minimum or completely eliminating payments at point of use are increasingly being adopted across low and middle income countries, within the framework of Universal Health Coverage policies. No evidence, however, is available on the real cost of designing and implementing these efforts. Our study aimed to fill this gap in knowledge through the systematic assessment of both the financial and economic costs associated with designing and implementing a pro-poor community-based targeting intervention across eight districts in rural Burkina Faso. We conducted a partial retrospective economic evaluation (i.e. estimating costs, but not benefits) associated with the abovementioned targeting intervention. We adopted a health system perspective, including all costs incurred by the government and its development partners as well as costs incurred by the community when working as volunteers on behalf of government structures. To trace both financial and economic costs, we combined Activity-Based Costing with Resource Consumption Accounting. To this purpose, we consulted and extracted information from all relevant design/implementation documents and conducted additional key informant structured interviews to assess the resource consumption that was not valued in the documents. For the entire community-based targeting intervention, we estimated a financial cost of USD 587,510 and an economic cost of USD 1,213,447. The difference was driven primarily by the value of the time contributed by the community. Communities carried the main economic burden. With a total of 102,609 ultra-poor identified, the financial cost and the economic cost per ultra-poor person were respectively USD 5,73 and USD 11,83. The study is first of its kind to accurately trace the financial and economic costs of a community-based targeting intervention aiming to identify the ultra-poor. The financial costs amounted to USD 5,73 and the economic costs to USD 11,83 per ultra-poor person identified. The financial costs of almost USD 6 represents 21% of the per capita government expenditure on health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 26 October 2021.
All research outputs
#2,399,134
of 19,496,717 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#36
of 357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,425
of 290,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,496,717 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 357 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 290,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them