Mapping of initiatives to increase membership in mutual health organizations in Benin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mutual health organizations (MHO) have been implemented across Africa to increase access to healthcare and improve financial protection. Despite efforts to develop MHOs, low levels of both initial enrolment and membership renewals continue to threaten their financial viability. The purpose of this study was to map initiatives implemented to increase the pool of MHO members in Benin. METHODS: A multiple case study was conducted to assess MHOs supported by five major promoters in Benin. Three months of fieldwork resulted in 23 semi-structured interviews and two focus groups with MHO promoters, technicians, elected members, and health professionals affiliated with the MHOs. Fifteen non-structured interviews provided additional information and a valuable source of triangulation. RESULTS: MHOs have adopted a wide range of initiatives targeting different entry points and involving a variety of stakeholders. Initiatives have included new types of collective health insurance packages and efforts to raise awareness by going door-to-door and organizing health education workshops. Different types of partnerships have been established to strengthen relationships with healthcare professionals and political leaders. However, the selection and implementation of these initiatives have been limited by insufficient financial and human resources. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the importance of prioritizing sustainable strategies to increase MHO membership. No single MHO initiative has been able to resolve the issue of low membership on its own. If combined, existing initiatives could provide a comprehensive and inclusive approach that would target all entry points and include key stakeholders such as household decision-makers, MHO elected members, healthcare professionals, community leaders, governmental authorities, medical advisors, and promoters. There is a need to evaluate empirically the implementation of these interventions. Mechanisms to promote dialogue between MHO stakeholders would be useful to devise innovative strategies, avoid repeating unsuccessful ones, and develop a coordinated plan to promote MHOs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".