Cargando…

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

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 164...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Banerjee, Abhijit Vinayak, Duflo, Esther, Glennerster, Rachel, Kothari, Dhruva
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871989/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20478960
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2220
_version_ 1782181192497364992
author Banerjee, Abhijit Vinayak
Duflo, Esther
Glennerster, Rachel
Kothari, Dhruva
author_facet Banerjee, Abhijit Vinayak
Duflo, Esther
Glennerster, Rachel
Kothari, Dhruva
author_sort Banerjee, Abhijit Vinayak
collection PubMed
description 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 $28 (1102 rupees, about £16 or €19) in intervention A and $56 (2202 rupees) 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.
format Text
id pubmed-2871989
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28719892010-05-18 Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives Banerjee, Abhijit Vinayak Duflo, Esther Glennerster, Rachel Kothari, Dhruva BMJ Research 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 $28 (1102 rupees, about £16 or €19) in intervention A and $56 (2202 rupees) 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. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2010-05-17 /pmc/articles/PMC2871989/ /pubmed/20478960 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2220 Text en © Banerjee et al 2010 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Research
Banerjee, Abhijit Vinayak
Duflo, Esther
Glennerster, Rachel
Kothari, Dhruva
Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives
title Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives
title_full Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives
title_fullStr Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives
title_full_unstemmed Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives
title_short Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives
title_sort improving immunisation coverage in rural india: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871989/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20478960
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2220
work_keys_str_mv AT banerjeeabhijitvinayak improvingimmunisationcoverageinruralindiaclusteredrandomisedcontrolledevaluationofimmunisationcampaignswithandwithoutincentives
AT dufloesther improvingimmunisationcoverageinruralindiaclusteredrandomisedcontrolledevaluationofimmunisationcampaignswithandwithoutincentives
AT glennersterrachel improvingimmunisationcoverageinruralindiaclusteredrandomisedcontrolledevaluationofimmunisationcampaignswithandwithoutincentives
AT kotharidhruva improvingimmunisationcoverageinruralindiaclusteredrandomisedcontrolledevaluationofimmunisationcampaignswithandwithoutincentives