2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.09.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is prenatal care really ineffective? Or, is the ‘devil’ in the distribution?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
73
0
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 110 publications
(79 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
4
73
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The sample is deemed as a mixture of populations rather than a single one (Everitt and Hand 1981;Conway and Deb 2005). The mixed probability density function…”
Section: Empirical Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The sample is deemed as a mixture of populations rather than a single one (Everitt and Hand 1981;Conway and Deb 2005). The mixed probability density function…”
Section: Empirical Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then we use the FMM to identify the structural changes of the elasticities in response to income change, with an assumption of mixture of two behavioral patterns. Such a method has been applied in health economics literature, for instance, when identifying the effectiveness of prenatal care (Conway and Deb 2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 However, previous empirical findings have been mixed. 3 This is likely due to the benefits of prenatal care accruing primarily to women with complicated pregnancies with most normal pregnancies unaffected by prenatal checkups (Conway and Deb 2005). Furthermore, the medical literature has not consistently found prenatal care to be effective at preventing preterm birth (IOM 2007).…”
Section: Empirical Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More consensuses have been attained on the effect of the onset of prenatal care. Warner (1995), Liu (1998) and Smith Conway et. al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%