Design and Baseline Findings of a Multi-site Non-randomized Evaluation of the Effect of a Health Programme on Microfinance Clients in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microfinance is the provision of financial services for the poor. Health program through microfinance has the potential to address several access barriers to health. We report the design and baseline findings of a multi-site non-randomized evaluation of the effect of a health program on the members of two microfinance organizations from Karnataka and Gujarat states of India. Villages identified for roll-out of health services with microfinance were pair-matched with microfinance only villages. A quantitative survey at inception and twelve months post health intervention compare the primary outcome (incidence of childhood diarrhea), and secondary outcome (place of last delivery, toilet at home, and out-of-pocket expenditure on treatment). At baseline, the intervention and comparison communities were similar except for out-of-pocket expenditure on health. Low reported use of toilet at home indicates the areas are heading towards a sanitation crisis. This should be an area of program priority for the microfinance organizations. While respondents primarily rely on their savings for meeting treatment expenditure, borrowing from friends, relatives, and money-lenders remains other important source of meeting treatment expenditure in the community. Programs need to prioritize steps to ensure awareness about national health insurance schemes, entitlement to increase service utilization, and developing additional health financing safety nets for financing outpatient care, that are responsible for majority of health-debt. Finally we discuss implications of such programs for national policy makers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".