Evidence - SBC Impact
Compelling, credible, recent, direct impact data
Evidence - SBC Impact
Time to read
less than
1 minute
Print
a- a+
Published 1 month ago
Last updated 4 days ago
Read so far

Mobile-based Conditional Cash Transfers - 62.3% vs. 58.4% Full Immunisation

Thu, 04/06/2023 - 04:36
0 comments

Strategy researched

Mobile-based conditional cash transfers (mCCT) with varying amounts, schedule, design, and payment method with or without automatic short messaging service (SMS) reminders

Impact achieved

Full immunisation coverage (FIC) was 62.3% (4,980/7,998) for participants receiving any mCCT, compared to 58.4% (934/1,600) for the SMS arm (adjusted odds ratio [OR]:1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.33, p = 0.005). SMS had a marginally statistically significant impact on FIC versus control (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.00-1.35; p = 0.046).

Country of study

Pakistan

Research methodology

7-arm, factorial RCT with 5 mCCT arms, one reminder (SMS)-only arm, and one control arm; 11,197 caregiver-child pairs

Journal

eClinicalMedicine; 2022

Journal paper title and link

Small mobile conditional cash transfers (mCCTs) of different amounts, schedules and design to improve routine childhood immunization coverage and timeliness of children aged 0-23 months in Pakistan: An open label multi-arm randomized controlled trial

Excerpt from Abstract

"FIC at 12 months was statistically significantly higher for any mCCT versus SMS (OR:1.18, 95% CI: 1.05-1.33; p = 0.005). Within the mCCT arms, FIC was statistically significantly higher for high versus low amount (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.29; p = 0.007), certain versus lottery payment (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.17-1.45; p < 0.001) and airtime versus mobile money (OR: 1.17, 95% CI:1.01-1.36; p = 0.043). There was no statistically significant difference between a flat and increasing schedule (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.93-1.15; p = 0.550). SMS had a marginally statistically significant impact on FIC versus control (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.00-1.35; p = 0.046). Findings were similar for up-to-date coverage of penta-3, measles-1 and measles-2 at 18 months."

Summary at this link

 

Add new comment

Your Priorities, Opportunities and Challenges? Complete the SURVEY

Why the focus on direct impact data?

A common challenge from policy makers, funders, community members, people directly experiencing development issues, and governments is: Demonstrate your Impact. Prove that what you are doing works. The high quality, highly credible data presented on the cards below is designed to help you answer that question for your social change, behaviour change, community engagement, communication and media for development, strategy formulation, policy engagement and funding initiatives. At this link filter the research data to your specific interests and priorities

Why a playing cards design?

There is a physical pack of cards with this data (to get a copy please request through the comment form for any card). The card approach allows for easy identification and selection of relevant direct impact data in any context. For example if talking with a donor and you need to identify proof of impact say "take a look at the 7 of Hearts". Quick access can be provided to high-quality data for many areas of your work – funding, planning, policy, advocacy, community dialogue, training, partner engagement, and more. A card deck is also engaging, easy to use and share, a conversation starter, and a resource - and they are fun and different. So we kept that design for the online images as it can serve similar purposes. 

What are the criteria for inclusion?

The impact data presented meets the following high standard for inclusion criteria:

  • Positive change or trend in a priority development issue;
  • Social change or behaviour change strategy or process;
  • Randomized Control Trial or Systematic Review methodology;
  • High quality peer review journal published;
  • Numeric impact data point
  • Published since 2010.