Skip to main content

Table 3 Baseline levels of service utilisation by subgroups across study arms

From: Who benefits from increased service utilisation? Examining the distributional effects of payment for performance in Tanzania

Outcome variable/ subgrouping variable

Intervention arm

Comparison arm

Yes

No

Gap

Yes

No

Gap

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

OUTCOME 1: Institutional deliveries

(n = 1376)

(n = 1468)

 Predisposing factors

  Married woman (%)

84.8

84.7

0.1

86.7

87.0

−0.3

  Woman below median age of 25 years/younger (%)

85.4

84.2

1.2

87.3

86.4

0.9

  Woman with primary education/above (%)

85.9

80.4

5.5b

89.8

74.8

15.0a

  Woman doing farming for occupation (%)

79.1

89.6

−10.5a

82.6

91.9

−9.3a

  Muslim woman (%)

84.7

85.4

−0.7

87.5

85.5

2.0

  Woman with one birth/parity 1 (%)

90.1

82.3

7.8a

92.5

84.3

8.2a

  Household size below the median size of 5 members (%)

87.2

82.3

4.9b

87.3

86.4

0.9

 Enabling factors

  Woman with any health insurance (%)

89.9

84.3

5.6c

83.3

87.1

−3.8

  Household with poorest wealth status (Tercile 1) (%)

83.3

91.7

−8.4a

80.5

94.2

−13.7a

  Household with middle wealth status (Tercile 2) (%)

80.8

91.7

−10.9a

84.2

94.2

−10.0a

  Household in rural district (%)

83.9

88.0

−4.1

85.8

92.3

−6.5c

OUTCOME 2: Uptake of IPT2

(n = 1029)

(n = 1.199)

 Predisposing factors

  Married woman (%)

51.0

47.0

4.0

59.3

51.7

7.6b

  Woman below median age of 25 years/younger (%)

48.7

51.1

−2.4

55.5

57.6

−2.1

  Woman with primary education/above (%)

50.9

45.1

5.8

57.5

52.9

4.6

  Woman doing farming for occupation (%)

48.5

51.1

−2.6

56.3

56.9

−0.6

  Muslim woman (%)

49.9

50.4

−0.5

58.2

53.5

4.7

  Woman with one birth/parity 1 (%)

48.0

50.8

−2.8

57.9

56.1

1.8

  Household size below the median size of 5 members (%)

50.7

49.1

1.6

55.3

57.9

−2.6

 Enabling factors

  Woman with any health insurance (%)

45.6

50.4

−4.8

61.6

56.1

5.5

  Household with poorest wealth status (Tercile 1) (%)

47.8

49.6

−1.8

59.7

54.2

5.5

  Household with middle wealth status (Tercile 2) (%)

52.6

49.6

3.0

56.9

54.2

2.7

  Household in rural district (%)

50.4

48.1

2.3

56.7

56.4

0.3

  1. We used a t-test to test the null hypothesis of a gap (column 3 and 6) equals to zero; Tercile 3 (least poor) was the reference category for Tercile 1 and 2; adenotes significance at 1%, bat 5%, and cat 10% level