The effects of incentivizing early prenatal care on infant health

Cygan-Rehm, Kamila; Karbownik, Krzysztof

doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2022.102612

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 102 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All included studies used data on both the preintervention and postintervention periods for the treatment and control groups, with the exception of a study by Cygan-Rehm and Karbownik. 34 Data on a separate control group were lacking in this study, as the treatment group served as its own control group for the corresponding weeks in a distinct year prior to the intervention.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The critical condition of no-anticipation was reported and followed in two studies. 34 36 Cygan-Rehm and Karbownik investigated this interaction term between the outcome and the preintervention period when the policy was announced but not yet implemented. 34 Meinhofer et al inspected no-anticipation visually by depicted leads and lags alongside parallel trends, thus confirming to the checklist.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 34 36 Cygan-Rehm and Karbownik investigated this interaction term between the outcome and the preintervention period when the policy was announced but not yet implemented. 34 Meinhofer et al inspected no-anticipation visually by depicted leads and lags alongside parallel trends, thus confirming to the checklist. 36 The remaining studies did not explicitly describe or assess no-anticipation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 31 One study that only implicitly discussed spillover did assess this critical condition (and was appraised as ‘+’). 34 A residential mobility scenario was discussed in four studies, in which subjects might initially be exposed to an intervention in the original intervention area, but on relocation to the control area might be inadvertently included in the control group as ‘never treated’. 32 37–39 However, these four studies did not explicitly report spillover or conduct an assessment for this critical conditions (appraised as ‘−’).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, studies varied markedly in the number and reporting of critical conditions ( table 2 ), with no study reporting and adhering to all seven critical conditions. Three studies carried out appropriate assessment of either five 29 36 or six critical conditions, 34 all of which were published in 2022. Eight studies that adhered to two or less DiD critical conditions 7 19 32 33 35 39 40 42 were published between 2014 and 2021.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Do studies evaluating early-life policy interventions fully adhere to the critical conditions of difference-in-differences? A systematic review

Klootwijk,

Struijs,

Petrus

et al. 2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo assess the reporting and methodological quality of early-life policy intervention papers that applied difference-in-differences (DiD) analysis.Study designSystematic review.Data sourcesPapers applying DiD of early-life policy interventions in high-income countries as identified by searching Medline, Embase and Scopus databases up to December, 2022.Study eligibility criteria, participants and interventionsStudies evaluating policy interventions targeting expectant mothers, infants or children up to two years old and conducted in high income countries were included. We focused on seven critical conditions of DiD as proposed in a comprehensive checklist: data requirements, parallel trends, no-anticipation, standard statistical assumptions, common shocks, group composition and spillover.ResultsThe DiD included studies (n=19) evaluating early-life policy interventions in childhood development (n=4), healthcare utilisation and providers (n=4), nutrition programmes (n=3) and economic policies such as prenatal care expansion (n=8). Although none of the included studies met all critical conditions, the most reported and adhered to critical conditions were data requirements (n=18), standard statistical assumptions (n=11) and the parallel trends assumption (n=9). No-anticipation and spillover were explicitly reported and adhered to in two studies and one study, respectively.ConclusionsThis review highlights current deficiencies in the reporting and methodological quality of studies using DiD to evaluate early-life policy interventions. As the validity of study conclusions and consequent implications for policy depend on the extent to which critical conditions are met, this shortcoming is concerning. We recommend that researchers use the described checklist to improve the transparency and validity of their evaluations. The checklist should be further refined by adding order of importance or knock-out criteria and may also help facilitate uniform terminology. This will hopefully encourage reliable DiD evaluations and thus contribute to better policies relating to expectant mothers, infants and children.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%