Has India's national rural health mission reduced inequities in maternal health services? A pre-post repeated cross-sectional study

Health Policy and Planning

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 79-90

  Vellakkal, Sukumar ^a   Gupta, Adyya ^a   Khan, Zaky ^a   Stuckler, David ^b   Reeves, Aaron ^b   Ebrahim, Shah ^c   Bowling, Ann ^d   Doyle, Pat ^d  

^a PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION OF INDIA   (India)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Antenatal care; Indian states; Institutional delivery; Maternal healthcare; National Rural Health Mission; Public health program; Socioeconomic inequity

Indexed keywords

CHILD; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INDIA; MATERNAL AGE; MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICE; MODEL; PARITY; PRENATAL CARE; ADULT; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE DISPARITY; OBSTETRIC DELIVERY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PREGNANCY; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; RURAL HEALTH; SOCIAL CLASS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADULT; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HEALTHCARE DISPARITIES; HUMANS; INDIA; MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL CARE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; RURAL HEALTH; SOCIAL CLASS;

EID: 85014507896     PISSN: 02681080     EISSN: 14602237     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czw100     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Attanasio O, Gomez LC, Heredia P, Vera-Hernandez M. 2005. The short-term impact of a conditional cash subsidy on child health and nutrition in Colombia. Report Summary: Familias 3.
2. Barros AJ, Hirakata VN. 2003. Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies: an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. BMC Medical Research Methodology 3: 21.
3. Carvalho N, Thacker N, Gupta SS, Salomon JA. 2014. More evidence on the impact of India's conditional cash transfer program, Janani Suraksha Yojana: quasi-experimental evaluation of the effects on childhood immunization and other reproductive and child health outcomes. PloS One 9: e109311.
4. Ernstsen L, Strand BH, Nilsen SM, et al. 2012. Trends in absolute and relative educational inequalities in four modifiable ischaemic heart disease risk factors: repeated cross-sectional surveys from the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT) 1984-2008. BMC Public Health 12: 266.
5. Filmer D, Pritchett LH. 2001. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure dataa e "Or tears: An application to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography 38: 115-32.
6. Gertler P. 2000. Final Report: The Impact of Progesa on Health. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
7. Gopalan SS, Varatharajan D. 2012. Addressing maternal healthcare through demand side financial incentives: experience of Janani Suraksha Yojana program in India. BMC Health Services Research 12: 319.
8. Government of Chhattisgarh. 2009. Notification of JSY Guidelines, dated 14/ 07/2009.
9. Government of India. 2014a. Janai Surksha Yojana, National Health Mission, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. http://nrhm.gov.in/nrhm-components/rmnch-a/maternal-health/janani-suraksha-yojana/background.html.
10. Government of India. 2014b. National Health Mission, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi. Available from: http://nrhm.gov.in/nhm/about-nhm.html.
11. Government of India. 2016. National Rural Health Mission: Meeting People's Health Needs in Rural Areas, Framework for Implementation 2005-2012, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, New Delhi. Accessed on 14th January 2016. http://nrhm.gov.in/images/pdf/about-nrhm/nrhm-framework-implementation/nrhm-framework-latest.pdf.
12. Guanais FC. 2013. The combined effects of the expansion of primary health care and conditional cash transfers on infant mortality in Brazil, 1998-2010. American Journal of Public Health 103: 2000-6.
13. Guin G, Sahu B, Khare S et al. 2012. Trends in maternal mortality and impact of Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) on maternal mortality ratio in a tertiary referral hospital. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 62: 307-11.
14. Gulliford M, Figueroa-Munoz J, Morgan M, et al. 2002. What does 'access to health care' mean? The Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 7: 186-8.
15. Gupta SK, Pal DK, Tiwari R, et al. 2012. Impact of Janani Suraksha Yojana on institutional delivery rate and maternal morbidity and mortality: an observational study in India. Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition 30: 464.
16. Harper S, Lynch J. 2006. In: Oakes J, Kaufman JS (ed). Measuring Inequalities in Health. In Methods in Social Epidemiology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Macro International. 2007. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005-06: India: Vol. I. Mumbai: IIPS.
17. International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Macro International (IIPS). 2010. Report on the District Level Household and Facility Survey Round-3, 2007-08: India. Mumbai.
18. Joe W. 2014. Intersectional inequalities in immunization in India, 1992-93 to 2005-06: a progress assessment. Health Policy and Planning. 30: 407-22.
19. Joshi R. 2009. Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality in Rural Punjab A Community Based Case-Control Study. Working Papers/eSocialSciences.
20. Khang YH, Yun SC, Lynch JW. 2008. Monitoring trends in socioeconomic health inequalities: it matters how you measure. BMC Public Health 8: 66.
21. Kunst AE, Mackenbach JP. 1990. Measuring socioeconomic inequalities in health, in Measuring socioeconomic inequalities in health. Geneva: World Health Organization.
22. Lagarde M, Haines A, Palmer N. 2009. The impact of conditional cash transfers on health outcomes and use of health services in low and middle income countries. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 4: CD008137.
23. Lahariya C. 2009. Cash incentives for institutional delivery: linking with antenatal and post natal care may ensure 'continuum of care' in India. Indian Journal of Community Medicine: Official Publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine 34: 15.
24. Langlois EV, Miszkurka M, Ziegler D, Karp I, Zunzunegui MV. 2013. Protocol for a systematic review on inequalities in postnatal care services utilization in low-and middle-income countries. Systematic Reviews 2: 1-8.
25. Lim SS, Dandona L, Hoisington JA, et al. 2010. India's Janani Suraksha Yojana, a conditional cash transfer programme to increase births in health facilities: an impact evaluation. The Lancet 375: 2009-23.
26. Maluccio J, Flores R. 2005. Impact Evaluation of a Conditional Cash Transfer Program: The Nicaraguan Red de ProtecciA n Social. Nicaragua: International Food Policy Research Institute.
27. Martines J, Paul VK, Bhutta ZA, et al. 2005. Neonatal survival: a call for action. The Lancet 365: 1189-97.
28. Mazumdar S, Mills A, Powell-Jackson T. 2012. Financial incentives in health: New evidence from India's Janani Suraksha Yojana.
29. Modugu HR, Kumar M, Kumar A, Millett C. 2013. State and socio-demographic group variation in out-of-pocket expenditure, borrowings and Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) programme use for birth deliveries in India. BMC Public Health 12:1048.
30. Morris SS, Olinto P, Flores R, Nilson EA, Figueiro AC. 2004. Conditional cash transfers are associated with a small reduction in the rate of weight gain of preschool children in northeast Brazil. The Journal of Nutrition 134: 2336-41.
31. Pallikadavath S, Foss M, Stones RW. 2004. Antenatal care: provision and inequality in rural north India. Social Science & Medicine 59: 1147-58.
32. Panja TK, Mukhopadhyay DK, Sinha N, et al. 2012. Are institutional deliveries promoted by Janani Suraksha Yojana in a district of West Bengal, India? Indian Journal of Public Health 56: 69-72.
33. Pathak PK, Singh A, Subramanian S. 2010. Economic inequalities in maternal health care: prenatal care and skilled birth attendance in India, 1992-2006. PLoS One 5: e13593.
34. Planning Commission of India. 2001. Evaluation Study of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) In 7 States. Programme Evaluation Organisation, Government of India, New Delhi.
35. Planning Commission. 2011. High Level Expert Group Report on Universal Health Coverage for India, New Delhi.
36. Randive B, Diwan V, De Costa A. 2013. India's conditional cash transfer programme (the JSY) to promote institutional birth: is there an association between institutional birth proportion and maternal mortality? PLoS One 8: e67452.
37. Randive B, San Sebastian M, De Costa A, Lindholm L. 2014. Inequalities in institutional delivery uptake and maternal mortality reduction in the context of cash incentive program, Janani Suraksha Yojana: results from nine states in India. Social Science & Medicine 1-6.
38. Reeves A, Gourtsoyannis Y, Basu S, et al. 2015. Financing universal health coverage-effects of alternative tax structures on public health systems: cross-national modelling in 89 low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet 386: 274-80.
39. Rivera JA, Sotres-Alvarez D, Habicht JP, Shamah T, Villalpando S. 2004. Impact of the Mexican program for education, health, and nutrition (Progresa) on rates of growth and anemia in infants and young children: a randomized effectiveness study. JAMA 291: 2563-70.
40. Sanneving L, Trygg N, Saxena D, et al. 2013. Inequity in India: the case of maternal and reproductive health. Global Health Action 6: 19145.
41. Save the Children. 2010. A Fair Chance At Life: Why Equity Matters For Child Mortality. Web Link: http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/de fault/files/docs/A-Fair-Chance-at-Life-1.pdf, 2010.
42. Sen A. 2002. Health: perception versus observation: self reported morbidity has severe limitations and can be extremely misleading. British Medical Journal 324: 860-1.
43. Sharma S, Joe W. 2014. National Rural Health Mission: An Unfinished Agenda, edited book, Delhi: Bookwell Publishers.
44. Shei A, Costa F, Reis MG, Ko AI. 2014. The impact of Brazil's Bolsa FamAlia conditional cash transfer program on children's health care utilization and health outcomes. BMC International Health and Human Rights 14: 10.
45. Spiegelman D, Hertzmark E. 2005. Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences. American Journal of Epidemiology 162: 199-200.
46. Staff Reporter, 2014. Health Mission left in the lurch, says official. URL: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/health-mission-left-in-the-lurch-says-official/article6433746.ece, in The Hindu.
47. StataCorp LP. 2014. StataCorp, Intercooled Stata 13.0 for Windows. College Station, TX: StataCorporation.
48. The World Bank. 2014. The World Bank Data: Health.; Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator, accessed 21 March 2015.
49. Vellakkal S, Subramanian SV, Millett C, et al. 2013. Socioeconomic inequalities in non-communicable diseases prevalence in India: disparities between self-reported diagnoses and standardized measures. PLoS One 8: e68219.
50. Vora KS, Mavalankar DV, Ramani KV, et al. 2009. Maternal health situation in India: a case study. Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition 27: 184-201.
51. Wagstaff A, Lindelow M, Jun G, Ling X, Juncheng Q. 2009. Extending health insurance to the rural population: an impact evaluation of China's new cooperative medical scheme. Journal of Health Economics 28: 1-19.
52. Wagstaff A. 2010. Estimating health insurance impacts under unobserved heterogeneity: the case of Vietnam's health care fund for the poor. Health Economics 19: 189-208.
53. World Health Organisation. 2005. World Health Report 2005: Make Every Mother and Child Count. Geneva.
54. World Health Organization. 2010. The World Health Report - Health Systems Financing: The Path to Universal Coverage. Geneva: World Health Organization.