Protocol for the evaluation of a social franchising model to improve maternal health in Uttar Pradesh, India

Implementation Science

Timothy Powell-Jackson³  Andreia Santos³  Loveday Penn-Kekana¹  Kaveri Haldar²  Varun Dutt²  Paresh Kumar²  Shreya K. Pereira³ 

[1] Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK;Sambodhi Research and Communications Limited, C-126, Sector-2, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India;Department of Global Health and Development, London School Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK

关键词: Study protocol;    India;    Impact evaluation;    Social franchising;   

Others  :  1219029
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-015-0269-2

 received in 2015-04-20, accepted in 2015-05-16,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Social franchising is the fastest growing market-based approach to organising and improving the quality of care in the private sector of low- and middle-income countries, but there is limited evidence on its impact and cost-effectiveness. The “Sky” social franchise model was introduced in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh in late 2013.

Methods/design

Difference-in-difference methods will be used to estimate the impact of the social franchise programme on the quality and coverage of health services along the continuum of care for reproductive, maternal and newborn health. Comparison clusters will be selected to be as similar as possible to intervention clusters using nearest neighbour matching methods. Two rounds of data will be collected from a household survey of 3600 women with a birth in the last 2 years and a survey of 450 health providers in the same localities. To capture the full range of effects, 59 study outcomes have been specified and then grouped into conceptually similar domains. Methods to account for multiple inferences will be used based on the pre-specified grouping of outcomes. A process evaluation will seek to understand the scale of the social franchise network, the extent to which various components of the programme are implemented and how impacts are achieved. An economic evaluation will measure the costs of setting up, maintaining and running the social franchise as well as the cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability of the programme.

Discussion

There is a dearth of evidence demonstrating whether market-based approaches such as social franchising can improve care in the private sector. This evaluation will provide rigorous evidence on whether an innovative model of social franchising can contribute to better population health in a low-income setting.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Pereira et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]National Family Health Survey (MCH and Family Planning), India 1992–93. IIPS, Bombay; 1995.
• [2]Special Bulletin on Maternal Mortality in India 2010-12. Government of India, New Delhi, India; 2013.
• [3]Kassebaum NJ, Bertozzi-Villa A, Coggeshall MS, Shackelford KA, Steiner C, Heuton KR et al.. Global, regional, and national levels and causes of maternal mortality during 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2013; 384(9947):980-1004.
• [4]Hunter BM, Bisht R, Chakravarthi I, Murray SF. Demand-side Financing and Promotion of Maternal Health. 2014.
• [5]Murray SF, Hunter BM, Bisht R, Ensor T, Bick D. Effects of demand-side financing on utilisation, experiences and outcomes of maternity care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14:30.
• [6]Sharma DC. Concern over private sector tilt in India’s new health policy. Lancet. 2015; 385(9965):317.
• [7]High Level Expert Group Report on Universal Health Coverage for India. Planning Commission of India, New Delhi; 2011.
• [8]Sengupta A, Nundy S. The private health sector in India. BMJ. 2005; 331(7526):1157-8.
• [9]Saksena P, Xu K, Elovainio R, Perrot J. Health Services Utilization and Out-of-Pocket Expenditure in Public and Private Facilities in Low Income Countries. World health report, Geneva; 2010.
• [10]Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner. Annual Health Survey 2011-2012 Fact Sheet, Uttar Pradesh. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissionerth ed. New Delhi, India: Government of India; 2011–2012.
• [11]Das J, Gertler PJ. Variations in practice quality in five low-income countries: a conceptual overview. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007; 26(3):w296-309.
• [12]Mills A, Brugha R, Hanson K, McPake B. What can be done about the private health sector in low-income countries? Bull World Health Organ. 2002; 80(4):325-30.
• [13]Patouillard E, Goodman CA, Hanson KG, Mills AJ. Can working with the private for-profit sector improve utilization of quality health services by the poor? A systematic review of the literature. Int J Equity in Health. 2007; 6:17.
• [14]Greenfield D, Braithwaite J. Health sector accreditation research: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008; 20(3):172-83.
• [15]Lagarde, M. and N. Palmer. The impact of contracting out on health outcomes and use of health services in low- and middle-income countries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(4): p. Cd008133.
• [16]Bellows NM, Bellows BW, Warren C. Systematic Review: the use of vouchers for reproductive health services in developing countries: systematic review. Trop Med Int Health. 2011; 16(1):84-96.
• [17]Koehlmoos, TP, Gazi R, Hossain SS, Zaman K. The effect of social franchising on access to and quality of health services in low- and middle-income countries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(1): p. Cd007136.
• [18]Beyeler N, York De La Cruz A, Montagu D. The impact of clinical social franchising on health services in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013; 8(4): Article ID e60669
• [19]Viswanathan R, Schatzkin E, Sprockett A. Clinical Social Franchising Compendium: An Annual Survey of Programs: Findings from 2013. San Francisco: The Global Health Group, Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco; 2014.
• [20]Nijmeijer KJ, Fabbricotti IN, Huijsman R. Is franchising in health care valuable? A systematic review. Health Policy Plan. 2014; 29(2):164-76.
• [21]Centre for Health Market Innovations. CHMI Definitions. [cited 2015; Available from: http://healthmarketinnovations.org/chmi-definitions.
• [22]Arrow KJ. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. 1963. Bull World Health Organ. 2004; 82(2):141-9.
• [23]Chalkley M, Malcomson JM. Contracting for health services when patient demand does not reflect quality. J Health Econ. 1998; 17(1):1-19.
• [24]Mooney G, Ryan M. Agency in health care: getting beyond first principles. J Health Econ. 1993; 12(2):125-35.
• [25]Rowe AK, Rowe SY, Peters DH, Holloway KA, Chalker J, Ross-Degnan D. Health Care Provider Performance Review, et al. Systematic review of strategies to improve health care provider performance in low- and middle-income countries. 2014.
• [26]Das J, Holla A, Das V, Mohanan M, Tabak D, Chan B. In urban and rural India, a standardized patient study showed low levels of provider training and huge quality gaps. Health Aff (Project Hope). 2012; 31(12):2774-84.
• [27]Stuart EA. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Statistical science: a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics. 2010; 25(1):1-21.
• [28]National Family Health Survey, India 2005–06. IIPS, Bombay; 2007.
• [29]Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, Annual Health Survey (AHS). Government of India: New Delhi, India; 2011-2012.
• [30]Nagpal J, Sachdeva A, Sengupta Dhar R, Bhargava VL, Bhartia A. Widespread non-adherence to evidence-based maternity care guidelines: a population-based cluster randomised household survey. BJOG. 2015; 122(2):238-47.
• [31]Organization WH. Care in Normal Birth: A Practical Guide. World Health Organization, Geneva; 1996.
• [32]Kruk, M.E, Kujawski S, Mbaruku G, Ramsey K, Moyo W, Freedman LP. Disrespectful and abusive treatment during facility delivery in Tanzania: a facility and community survey. Health Policy and Planning. 2014: p. czu079.
• [33]Warren C, Njuki R, Abuya T, Ndwiga C, Maingi G, Serwanga J et al.. Study protocol for promoting respectful maternity care initiative to assess, measure and design interventions to reduce disrespect and abuse during childbirth in Kenya. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13(1):21.
• [34]Angrist JD, Pischke J-S. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton university press, Princeton; 2009.
• [35]Anderson ML. Multiple inference and gender differences in the effects of early intervention: a reevaluation of the Abecedarian, Perry Preschool, and Early Training Projects. J Am Stat Assoc. 2008; 1481–95:103(484).
• [36]Kling JR, Liebman JB, Katz LF. Experimental analysis of neighborhood effects. Econometrica. 2007; 75(1):83-119.
• [37]Westfall PH. Resampling-Based Multiple Testing: Examples and Methods for P-Value Adjustment. John Wiley & Sons, New York; 1993.
• [38]Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Methods for exploring implementation variation and local context within a cluster randomised community intervention trial. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004; 58(9):788-93.
• [39]Evans C, Lambert H. Implementing community interventions for HIV prevention: insights from project ethnography. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 66(2):467-78.
• [40]DeWalt, K.M. and B.R. DeWalt. Participant observation: a guide for fieldworkers. 2010: Rowman Altamira; 2010.
• [41]Gyldmark M. A review of cost studies of intensive care units: problems with the cost concept. Crit Care Med. 1995; 23(5):964-72.
• [42]Jegers M, Edbrooke DL, Hibbert CL, Chalfin DB, Burchardi H. Definitions and methods of cost assessment: an intensivist’s guide. ESICM section on health research and outcome working group on cost effectiveness. Intensive Care Med. 2002; 28(6):680-5.
• [43]Terris-Prestholt F, Fern Terris-Prestholt AS, Sweeney S, Kumaranayake L. The Cost Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines for Syphilis Screening Strategies. 2011.
• [44]Walker N, Tam Y, Friberg I. Overview of the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). BMC Public Health. 2013; 13 Suppl 3:S1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [45]Weinberger M, Pozo-Martin F, Boler T, Fry K, Hopinks K. Impact 2: An Innovative Tool for Estimating the Impact of Reproductive Health Programmes. Marie Stopes International, London; 2012.
• [46]Shillcutt SD, Walker DG, Goodman CA, Mills AJ. Cost-effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the debates surrounding decision rules. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009; 27(11):903-17.
• [47]Revill P, Walker S, Madan J, Ciaranello A, Mwase T, Gibb DM et al.. Using Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds to Determine Value for Money in Low- and Middle-Income Country Healthcare Systems: Are Current International Norms Fit for Purpose?. Centre for Health Economics Research Paper 98, York; 2014.
• [48]Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance W. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, in Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1997.
• [49]Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000; 283(13):1715-22.