BackgroundRwanda has made tremendous progress in reduction of maternal mortality in the last twenty years. Antenatal care is believed to have played a role in that progress. In late 2016, the World Health Organization published new antenatal care guidelines recommending an increase from four visits during pregnancy to eight contacts with skilled personnel, among other changes. There is ongoing debate regarding the cost implications and potential outcomes countries can expect, if they make that shift. For Rwanda, a necessary starting point is to understand the cost of current antenatal care practice, which, according to our knowledge, has not been documented so far.MethodsCost information was collected from Kigali City and Northern province of Rwanda through two cross-sectional surveys: a household-based survey among women who had delivered a year before the interview (N = 922) and a health facility survey in three public, two faith-based, and one private health facility. A micro costing approach was used to collect health facility data. Household costs included time and transport. Results are reported in 2015 USD.ResultsThe societal cost (household + health facility) of antenatal care for the four visits according to current Rwandan guidelines was estimated at $160 in the private health facility and $44 in public and faith-based health facilities. The first visit had the highest cost ($75 in private and $21 in public and faith-based health facilities) compared to the three other visits. Drugs and consumables were the main input category accounting for 54% of the total cost in the private health facility and for 73% in the public and faith-based health facilities.ConclusionsThe unit cost of providing antenatal care services is considerably lower in public than in private health facilities. The household cost represents a small proportion of the total, ranging between 3% and 7%; however, it is meaningful for low-income families. There is a need to do profound equity analysis regarding the accessibility and use of antenatal care services, and to consider ways to reduce households’ time cost as a possible barrier to the use of antenatal care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3013-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Community-based health insurance (CBHI) schemes are an emerging mechanism for providing financial protection against health-related poverty. In Rwanda, CBHI is being implemented across the country, and it is based on four socioeconomic categories of the “Ubudehe system”: the premiums of the first category are fully subsidized by government, the second and third category members pay 3000 frw, and the fourth category members pay 7000 frw as premium. However, low adherence of community to the scheme since 2011 has not been sufficiently studied. Objective This study aimed at determining the factors contributing to low adherence to the CBHI in rural Nyanza district, southern Rwanda. Methodology A cross-sectional study was conducted in nine health centers in rural Nyanza district from May 2017 to June 2017. A sample size of 495 outpatients enrolled in CBHI or not enrolled in the CBHI scheme was calculated based on 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence interval. Logistic regression was used to identify the determinants of low adherence to CBHI. Results The study revealed that there was a significant association between long waiting time to be seen by a medical care provider and between health care service provision and low adherence to the CBHI scheme (P value < 0.019) (CI: 0.09107 to 0.80323). The estimates showed that premium not affordable (P value < 0.050) (CI: 0.94119 to 9.8788) and inconvenient model of premium payment (P value < 0.001) (CI: 0.16814 to 0.59828) are significantly associated with low adherence to the CBHI scheme. There was evidence that the socioeconomic status as measured by the category of Ubudehe (P value < 0.005) (CI: 1.4685 to 8.93406) increases low adherence to the CBHI scheme. Conclusion This study concludes that belonging to the second category of the Ubudehe system, long waiting time to be seen by a medical care provider and between services, premium not affordable, and inconvenient model of premium payment were significant predictors of low adherence to CBHI scheme.

Violence against women and girls (VAWG) is a global problem with profound consequences. Although there is a growing body of evidence on the effectiveness of VAWG prevention interventions, economic data are scarce. We carried out a cross-country study to examine the costs of VAWG prevention interventions in low- and middle-income countries. We collected primary cost data on six different pilot VAWG prevention interventions in six countries: Ghana, Kenya, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Africa and Zambia. The interventions varied in their delivery platforms, target populations, settings and theories of change. We adopted a micro-costing methodology. We calculated total costs and a number of unit costs common across interventions (e.g. cost per beneficiary reached). We used the pilot-level cost data to model the expected total costs and unit costs of five interventions scaled up to the national level. Total costs of the pilots varied between ∼US $208 000 in a small group intervention in South Africa to US $2 788 000 in a couples and community-based intervention in Rwanda. Staff costs were the largest cost input across all interventions; consequently, total costs were sensitive to staff time use and salaries. The cost per beneficiary reached in the pilots ranged from ∼US $4 in a community-based intervention in Ghana to US $1324 for one-to-one counselling in Zambia. When scaled up to the national level, total costs ranged from US $32 million in Ghana to US $168 million in Pakistan. Cost per beneficiary reached at scale decreased for all interventions compared to the pilots, except for school-based interventions due to differences in student density per school between the pilot and the national average. The costs of delivering VAWG prevention vary greatly due to differences in the geographical reach, number of intervention components and the complexity of adapting the intervention to the country. Cost-effectiveness analyses are necessary to determine the value for money of interventions.