↓ Skip to main content

Step-wedge cluster-randomised community-based trials: An application to the study of the impact of community health insurance

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Step-wedge cluster-randomised community-based trials: An application to the study of the impact of community health insurance
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, October 2008
DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-6-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuela De Allegri, Subhash Pokhrel, Heiko Becher, Hengjin Dong, Ulrich Mansmann, Bocar Kouyaté, Gisela Kynast-Wolf, Adjima Gbangou, Mamadou Sanon, John Bridges, Rainer Sauerborn

Abstract

We describe a step-wedge cluster-randomised community-based trial which has been conducted since 2003 to accompany the implementation of a community health insurance (CHI) scheme in West Africa. The trial aims at overcoming the paucity of evidence-based information on the impact of CHI. Impact is defined in terms of changes in health service utilisation and household protection against the cost of illness. Our exclusive focus on the description and discussion of the methods is justified by the fact that the study relies on a methodology previously applied in the field of disease control, but never in the field of health financing. First, we clarify how clusters were defined both in respect of statistical considerations and of local geographical and socio-cultural concerns. Second, we illustrate how households within clusters were sampled. Third, we expound the data collection process and the survey instruments. Finally, we outline the statistical tools to be applied to estimate the impact of CHI. We discuss all design choices both in relation to methodological considerations and to specific ethical and organisational concerns faced in the field. On the basis of the appraisal of our experience, we postulate that conducting relatively sophisticated trials (such as our step-wedge cluster-randomised community-based trial) aimed at generating sound public health evidence, is both feasible and valuable also in low income settings. Our work shows that if accurately designed in conjunction with local health authorities, such trials have the potential to generate sound scientific evidence and do not hinder, but at times even facilitate, the implementation of complex health interventions such as CHI.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
India 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 90 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 10%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 27%
Social Sciences 20 21%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 18 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 January 2015.
All research outputs
#8,466,751
of 25,271,884 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#945
of 1,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,336
of 98,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,271,884 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,377 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 98,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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