Article Sidebar
Published:
Nov 6, 2019DOI:
10.4314/ahs.v19i3.36Keywords:
Article Details
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
Impact of the community healthcare plan and the free maternity services programme on maternal and child healthcare utilisation in rural Kenya: a dairy farmer population-based study
Abstract
Background: Access to and utilisation of quality maternal and child healthcare services is generally recognized as the best way to reduce maternal and child mortality.
Objectives: We evaluated whether the introduction of a voluntary family health insurance programme, combined with quality improvement of healthcare facilities [The Community Health Plan (TCHP)], and the introduction of free access to delivery services in all public facilities [Free Maternity Services programme (FMS)] increased antenatal care utilisation and use of facility deliveries among pregnant women in rural Kenya.
Methods: TCHP was introduced in 2011, whilst the FMS programme was launched in 2013. To measure the impact of TCHP, percentage points (PP) changes in antenatal care utilisation and facility deliveries from the pre-TCHP to the post-TCHP period between the TCHP programme area and a control area were compared in multivariable difference-in-differences analysis. To measure the impact of the FMS programme, PP changes in antenatal care utilisation and facility deliveries from the pre-FMS to the post-FMS period in the pooled TCHP programme and control areas was assessed in multivariable logistic regression analysis. Data was collected through household surveys in 2011 and 2104. Households (n=549) were randomly selected from the member lists of 2 dairy companies, and all full-term pregnancies in the 3.5 years preceding the baseline and follow-up survey among women aged 15-49 at the time of pregnancy were eligible for this study (n=295).
Results: Because only 4.1% of eligible women were insured through TCHP during pregnancy, any increase in utilisation attributable to the TCHP programme could only have come about as a result of the quality improvements in TCHP facilities. Antenatal care utilisation significantly increased after TCHP was introduced (14.4 PP; 95% CI: 4.5–24.3; P=0.004), whereas no effect was observed of the programme on facility deliveries (8.8 PP; 95% CI: -14.1 to +31.7; P=0.450). Facility deliveries significantly increased after the introduction of the FMS programme (27.9 PP; 95% CI: 11.8–44.1; P=0.001), but antenatal care utilisation did not change significantly (4.0 PP; 95% CI: -0.6 to +8.5; P=0.088).
Conclusion: Access to the FMS programme increased facility deliveries substantially and may contribute to improved maternal and new-born health and survival if the quality of delivery services is sustained or further improved. Despite low up-take, TCHP had a positive effect on antenatal care utilisation among uninsured women by improving the quality of existing healthcare facilities. An alignment of the two programmes could potentially lead to optimal results.
Funding: The study was funded by the Health Insurance Fund (http://www.hifund.org/), through a grant from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Keywords: Free Maternity Services programme, maternal and child healthcare utilisation rural, Kenya, a dairy farmer population-based study.
