Cash on delivery: Results of a randomized experiment to promote maternal health care in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Full vouchers and conditional cash transfers were highly effective at increasing institutional deliveries among poor, rural women in Kenya. • Co-payments reduced the effectiveness of vouchers and unconditional transport subsidies were not effective. • A free care policy instituted by the government also demonstrated no effect on institutional deliveries. • SMS text reminders did not have any effect on institutional deliveries. We conducted a randomized controlled experiment to test whether vouchers, cash transfers, and SMS messages were effective in boosting facility delivery rates among poor, pregnant women in rural Kenya. We find a strong effect of the full vouchers and the conditional cash transfers: 48% of women with access to both interventions delivered in a health facility, while only 36% of those with neither did. Amongst women who did not receive a cash transfer, we find that a small copayment dramatically reduced voucher effectiveness, suggesting a discontinuous impact of cost-sharing on the demand for health services. Both the unconditional cash transfer and the text messages had limited effect on the use of health services. Finally, we also find no evidence that a government policy to eliminate user fees increased demand for maternal health services.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".