Skip to main content

Table 3 Impact of DSF on skilled attendance at birth

From: Effects of demand-side financing on utilisation, experiences and outcomes of maternity care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

 

Study

Study data

Effect

95% confidence interval, s.e. or p-value

Conditional cash transfers

 

Hernandez Prado et al. [27]

2003

No effect in early intervention rural areas

p > 0.1

20.1% increase in late intervention rural areas

p < 0.05

10.9-11.3% relative decrease in urban areas

p < 0.05

 

Urquieta et al. [32]

1998, 2000

No effect

p > 0.1

 

Sosa-Rubai et al. [31]

2007

OR: 2.4 in early intervention areas

s.e.: 0.9

OR: 3.3 in late intervention areas

s.e.: 1.4

 

De Brauw and Peterman [33]

2008

12.3-17.8 percentage point increase

s.e.: 5.4-9.9

Payments to offset costs of access

 

Powell-Jackson et al. [61]

2001-2007

2.3 percentage point increase from baseline

p < 0.01

 

Powell-Jackson and Hanson [10]

2008

16.6% increase compared to controls

CI: 4.1, 29.1

 

Lim et al. [9]

2002-2004, 2007-2009

36.2-39.3 increased probability among recipients

CI: 33.7, 45.0

 

Santhya et al. [45]

2009, 2010

Mean difference: 100% higher among recipients

p < 0.001

Mean difference: 78.2% rise among recipients with past births and no increase among non-recipients

p < 0.001

 

Powell-Jackson et al. [35]

2002-2004, 2007-2009

8.1 percentage point increase from baseline

s.e.: 1.8

Vouchers for maternity services

 

Rob et al. [75]

2007, 2008

16.1 percentage point increase from baseline

p < 0.01

 

Ahmed and Khan [79]

2008

OR: 3.6 among recipients

s.e.: 0.1

 

Hatt et al. [8]

2009

46.2 percentage points higher in intervention areas

p < 0.001

 

Nguyen et al. [80]

2009

46.4% more likely in intervention areas

s.e.: 4.3

 

Obare et al. [65]

2010

OR: 2.0 in early intervention areas

CI: 1.4, 2.8

OR: 0.9 in late intervention areas

CI: 0.6, 1.5

 

Bellows et al. [64]

2006, 2009

OR: 1.2 in intervention areas

CI: 1.0, 1.4

OR: 12.9 among recipients

CI: 8.9, 19.3

  1. Notes. Effect is presented as odds ratio (OR), mean difference compared to controls or percentage increase from baseline. Confidence intervals (CI) are shown if they have been provided in the study, otherwise standard errors (s.e.) and p-values are shown. No quantitative studies on unconditional cash transfers were included in the systematic review. No quantitative studies on vouchers for merit goods considered impact on skilled attendance at birth.