Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives

Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Rachel Glennerster, Dhruva Kothari, Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Rachel Glennerster, Dhruva Kothari

Abstract

Objective: To assess the efficacy of modest non-financial incentives on immunisation rates in children aged 1-3 and to compare it with the effect of only improving the reliability of the supply of services.

Design: Clustered randomised controlled study.

Setting: Rural Rajasthan, India.

Participants: 1640 children aged 1-3 at end point.

Interventions: 134 villages were randomised to one of three groups: a once monthly reliable immunisation camp (intervention A; 379 children from 30 villages); a once monthly reliable immunisation camp with small incentives (raw lentils and metal plates for completed immunisation; intervention B; 382 children from 30 villages), or control (no intervention, 860 children in 74 villages). Surveys were undertaken in randomly selected households at baseline and about 18 months after the interventions started (end point).

Main outcome measures: Proportion of children aged 1-3 at the end point who were partially or fully immunised.

Results: Among children aged 1-3 in the end point survey, rates of full immunisation were 39% (148/382, 95% confidence interval 30% to 47%) for intervention B villages (reliable immunisation with incentives), 18% (68/379, 11% to 23%) for intervention A villages (reliable immunisation without incentives), and 6% (50/860, 3% to 9%) for control villages. The relative risk of complete immunisation for intervention B versus control was 6.7 (4.5 to 8.8) and for intervention B versus intervention A was 2.2 (1.5 to 2.8). Children in areas neighbouring intervention B villages were also more likely to be fully immunised than those from areas neighbouring intervention A villages (1.9, 1.1 to 2.8). The average cost per immunisation was $56 (2202 rupees) in intervention A and $28 (1102 rupees, about pound16 or euro19) in intervention B.

Conclusions: Improving reliability of services improves immunisation rates, but the effect remains modest. Small incentives have large positive impacts on the uptake of immunisation services in resource poor areas and are more cost effective than purely improving supply.

Trial registration: IRSCTN87759937.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare that they have no competing interests relevant to this work.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4787864/bin/bana733006.f1_default.jpg
Fig 1 Flow of participants through study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4787864/bin/bana733006.f2_default.jpg
Fig 2 Percentage of children aged 1-3 years fully immunised by treatment status
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4787864/bin/bana733006.f3_default.jpg
Fig 3 Number of immunisations received by children aged 1-3 years

References

    1. WHO and UNICEF. Global immunization vision and strategy. World Health Organization, 2005. .
    1. Bloom D, Canning D, Weston M. The value of vaccination. World Economics 2005;6:15-39.
    1. WHO and UNICEF. Global immunization data. World Health Organization, 2008. .
    1. Lim SS, Stein DB, Charrow A, Murray CJ. Tracking progress towards universal childhood immunisation and the impact of global initiatives: a systematic analysis of three-dose diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis immunisation coverage. Lancet 2008;372:2031-46.
    1. Coutinho L, Bisht S, Raje G. Numerical narratives and documentary practices: vaccines, targets and reports of immunisation programme. Econ Polit Wkly 2000;35:656-66.
    1. National Family Health Survey, 2005-2006 (NHFS-3). .
    1. Grabowski M, Farrell N, Hawley W, Chimumbwa J, Nobiya T, Ahun M, et al. Ghana and Zambia: achieving equity in the distribution of insecticide-treated bednets through links with measles vaccination campaigns. Health, nutrition, and population (HNP) discussion paper. World Bank, 2005.
    1. Wiysonge CS, Nomo E, Mawo JNN, Ticha JM. Accelerated measles control in sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet 2006;367:394-5.
    1. Loevinsohn BP, Loevinsohn ME. Well child clinics and mass vaccination campaigns: an evaluation of strategies for improving the coverage of primary health care in a developing country. Am J Public Health. 1987;77:1407-11.
    1. Rivera JA, Sotres-Alvarez D, Habicht JP, Shamah T, Villalpando S. 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 2004;291:2563-70.
    1. Lagarde M, Haines A, Palmer N. Conditional cash transfers for improving uptake of health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. JAMA 2007;298:1900-10.
    1. Fernald LCH, Gertler PJ, Neufeld LM. Role of cash in conditional cash transfer programmes for child health, growth, and development: an analysis of Mexico’s Oportunidades. Lancet 2008;371:828-37.
    1. Glassman A, Todd J, Gaarder M. Latin America: cash transfers to support better household decisions. In: Eichler R, Levine R, eds. Performance-based incentives working group. performance incentives for global health: potential and pitfalls. Brookings Institution Press, 2009:89-121.
    1. Maluccio J, Flores R. Impact evaluation of a conditional cash transfer program: the Nicaraguan Red de Proteccion Social. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division (FCND) Discussion Paper No 184. International Food Policy Research Institute, 2004.
    1. Banerjee A, Deaton A, Duflo E. Health care delivery in rural Rajasthan. Econ Polit Wkly 2004;39:944-9.
    1. WHO. Selected vaccine introduction status into routine immunization. World Health Organization, 2003. .
    1. Nichter M. Vaccinations in the third world: a consideration of community demand. Soc Sci Med 1995;41:617-32.
    1. Atkinson W, Pickering L, Schwartz B, Weniger B, Iskander J, Watson J. General recommendations on immunization. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002;51:1-36.
    1. Thornton R. The demand for and impact of learning HIV status: Evidence from a field experiment. Am Econ Rev 2008;98:1829-63.
    1. Filmer D, Schady N. Are there diminishing returns to transfer size in conditional cash transfers? Policy Research Working Paper Series 4999. World Bank, 2009.
    1. Kremer M, Miguel E. The illusion of sustainability. Q J Econ 2007;122:1007-65.
    1. Cohen J, Dupas P. Free distribution or cost-sharing? Evidence from a randomized malaria prevention experiment. Brookings Global Economy and Development Working Paper No 11. Brookings Institute, 2007.
    1. Morris SS, Flores F, Olinto P, Medina JM. Monetary incentives in primary health care and effects on use and coverage of preventive health care interventions in rural Honduras: cluster randomized trial. Lancet 2004;364:2030-7.
    1. Martins N, Morris P, Kelly PM. Food incentives to improve completion of tuberculosis treatment: randomised controlled trial in Dili, Timor-Leste. BMJ 2009;339:b4248.
    1. Health Budget 2006-07: new directions? Express Healthcare Management 2006;April.
    1. Shea B, Neil A, David H. Increasing the demand for childhood vaccination in developing countries: a systematic review. BMC Int Health Hum Rights 2009;9(suppl I):S5.
    1. Travis P, Bennet S, Haines A, Pang T, Bhutta Z, Hyder AA, et al. Overcoming health systems constraints to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Lancet 2004;364:900-6.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere