Premium
El uso de cupones en los servicios de salud reproductiva de países en vías de desarrollo: revisión sistemática
Author(s) -
Bellows Nicole M.,
Bellows Ben W.,
Warren Charlotte
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
tropical medicine and international health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.056
H-Index - 114
eISSN - 1365-3156
pISSN - 1360-2276
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2010.02667.x
Subject(s) - voucher , medicine , population , health care , environmental health , grey literature , reproductive health , economic growth , medline , business , political science , economics , accounting , law
Summary Objectives To identify where vouchers have been used for reproductive health (RH) services, to what extent RH voucher programmes have been evaluated, and whether the programmes have been effective. Methods A systematic search of the peer review and grey literature was conducted to identify RH voucher programmes and evaluation findings. Experts were consulted to verify RH voucher programme information and identify further programmes and studies not found in the literature search. Studies were examined for outcomes regarding targeting, costs, knowledge, utilization, quality, and population health impact. Included studies used cross‐sectional, before‐and‐after and quasi‐experimental designs. Results Thirteen RH voucher programmes fitting established criteria were identified. RH voucher programmes were located in Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Kenya (2), Korea, India, Indonesia, Nicaragua (3), Taiwan, and Uganda. Among RH voucher programmes, 7 were quantitatively evaluated in 15 studies. All evaluations reported some positive findings, indicating that RH voucher programmes increased utilization of RH services, improved quality of care, and improved population health outcomes. Conclusions The potential for RH voucher programmes appears positive; however, more research is needed to examine programme effectiveness using strong study designs. In particular, it is important to see stronger evidence on cost‐effectiveness and population health impacts, where the findings can best direct governments and external funders.