IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea12/124625.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Delivery at Home Versus Delivery at a Health Care Facility – A Case Study of Bihar, India

Author

Listed:
  • Kaul, Sapna
  • You, Wen
  • Boyle, Kevin J.

Abstract

Improvement in maternal health care is at the center stage of policy making for many developing countries including India, which is faced with a high maternal mortality rate of 540 deaths per 100,000 live births. In India, 36% of women are underweight and an important policy question is whether maternal health care has any effect on the longterm health of mothers. In this paper, we investigate whether place of delivery (delivery at health care facility versus delivery at home) has any effect on the body mass index of women and children. This relationship is estimated in the context of Bihar, India where only one in five births take place at a health facility. Data on Bihar is taken from the third round of National Family Health Survey conducted in 2005-2006. The data set contains information on women aged between 15 to 49 years and children below the age of 5. We use the program evaluation approach to estimate the treatment effects associated with deliveries at health care institutions for women. Propensity score matching is used to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT). For underweight women, we find that ATT is positive and highly significant. This implies that there are average gains from delivering at a health facility as compared to delivering at home for underweight women. Using the propensity score results we find that education, urbanization, and higher household wealth increase the likelihood of using health institutions for child deliveries. Therefore, we recommend that (i) awareness should be spread about the positive health impacts of institutional deliveries though educational programs, (ii) there is a need for more investment in health infrastructure in Bihar, and (iii) maternal health care should be made accessible and affordable to poor households.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaul, Sapna & You, Wen & Boyle, Kevin J., 2012. "Delivery at Home Versus Delivery at a Health Care Facility – A Case Study of Bihar, India," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124625, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea12:124625
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.124625
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/124625/files/KYK_AAEA_2012.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.124625?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra Todd, 1998. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 65(2), pages 261-294.
    2. James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mampi Bose, 2019. "Determinants of Choice of Care Providers During Childbirth in Rural West Bengal, India," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 13(1), pages 47-70, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James J. Heckman & Petra E. Todd, 2009. "A note on adapting propensity score matching and selection models to choice based samples," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 12(s1), pages 230-234, January.
    2. Matias Busso & Patrick Kline, 2008. "Do Local Economic Development Programs Work? Evidence from the Federal Empowerment Zone Program," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1639, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    3. Dettmann, E. & Becker, C. & Schmeißer, C., 2011. "Distance functions for matching in small samples," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 1942-1960, May.
    4. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain, 2015. "Analysis of the bias of Matching and Difference-in-Difference under alternative earnings and selection processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 110-123.
    5. Martin Huber, 2019. "An introduction to flexible methods for policy evaluation," Papers 1910.00641, arXiv.org.
    6. Michael Gerfin & Michael Lechner, 2002. "A Microeconometric Evaluation of the Active Labour Market Policy in Switzerland," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(482), pages 854-893, October.
    7. Marco Vega & Diego Winkelried, 2005. "Inflation Targeting and Inflation Behavior: A Successful Story?," International Journal of Central Banking, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 1(3), December.
    8. Heshmati, Almas & Loof, Hans, 2005. "The Impact of Public Funds on Private R&D Investment: New Evidence from a Firm Level Innovation Study," Discussion Papers 11862, MTT Agrifood Research Finland.
    9. Torsten Persson & Guido Tabellini & Francesco Trebbi, 2003. "Electoral Rules and Corruption," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 958-989, June.
    10. Barbara Sianesi, 2002. "Swedish active labour market programmes in the 1990s: overall effectiveness and differential performance," IFS Working Papers W02/03, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    11. Islam, Asadul & Nguyen, Chau & Smyth, Russell, 2015. "Does microfinance change informal lending in village economies? Evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 141-156.
    12. Heckman, James, 2001. "Accounting for Heterogeneity, Diversity and General Equilibrium in Evaluating Social Programmes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(475), pages 654-699, November.
    13. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/53r60a8s3kup1vc9je5h30d2n is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Yechan Park & Yuya Sasaki, 2024. "Matching $\leq$ Hybrid $\leq$ Difference in Differences," Papers 2411.07952, arXiv.org.
    15. David Card & Pablo Ibarrarán & Ferdinando Regalia & David Rosas-Shady & Yuri Soares, 2011. "The Labor Market Impacts of Youth Training in the Dominican Republic," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 267-300.
    16. K. Sudhir & Debabrata Talukdar, 2015. "The "Peter Pan Syndrome" in Emerging Markets: The Productivity-Transparency Tradeoff in IT Adoption," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1980, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    17. Marco Caliendo & Michel Clement & Dominik Papies & Sabine Scheel-Kopeinig, 2012. "Research Note ---The Cost Impact of Spam Filters: Measuring the Effect of Information System Technologies in Organizations," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-2), pages 1068-1080, September.
    18. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2002. "Simple and Bias-Corrected Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects," NBER Technical Working Papers 0283, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Cameron, Lisa A., 2002. "Did social safety net scholarships reduce drop-out rates during the Indonesian economic crisis?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2800, The World Bank.
    20. Carlos A. Flores & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2009. "Evaluating Nonexperimental Estimators for Multiple Treatments: Evidence from Experimental Data," Working Papers 2010-10, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
    21. Lorraine Dearden & Barbara Sianesi, 2001. "Estimating the Returns to Education: Models, Methods and Results," CEE Discussion Papers 0016, Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Health Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea12:124625. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.