Table 5.
Impact of the Team-Based Goals and Incentives (TBGI) intervention on goal-related behaviours, as reported by maternal respondents, Begusarai, Bihar, 2012–2014*
| Goal-related behaviours† | Goal number† | Baseline (%)‡ (May to June 2012) n=1680 |
Postimplementation (%)‡ (November to December 2014) n=1690 |
Difference in Difference§ n=3370 | ||||||||
| No in model | Control (n=849) |
Intervention (n=831) |
P value | No. in model | Control (n=831) |
Intervention (n=859) |
P value | No. in model | Per cent difference attributable to TBGI | P value | ||
| Obtained phone number for delivery | 1 | |||||||||||
| A. Front-line worker’s (FLW) number | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 1690 | 53.9 | 49.2 | 0.21 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | ||
| B. Number for private vehicle | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 1690 | 9.8 | 12.7 | 0.42 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | ||
| C. Number for ambulance | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 1690 | 13.2 | 15.8 | 0.19 | n.a. | ||||
| D. Any of the above | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 1690 | 58.7 | 55.4 | 0.39 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | ||
| Received 90 IFA tablets | 2 | 1678 | 25.0 | 23.1 | 0.51 | 1686 | 11.0 | 16.0 | 0.02 | 3364 | 6.8 | 0.02 |
| Immediate breast feeding (within 1 hour of delivery) | 3 | 1679 | 48.2 | 47.4 | 0.87 | 1687 | 54.2 | 60.3 | 0.19 | 3366 | 6.9 | 0.31 |
| Nothing applied to the cord after cutting | 4 | 1679 | 40.1 | 41.8 | 0.79 | 1559 | 53.2 | 53.2 | 0.98 | 3238 | −1.7 | 0.80 |
| Infant aged 6–11 months old ate cereal-based meal in previous day | 5 | 815 | 40.1 | 45.3 | 0.35 | 744 | 54.3 | 69.4 | <0.01 | 1559 | 9.8 | 0.14 |
| Current use of any modern method of contraception | 6 | |||||||||||
| A. Among women with infants <6 months old | 818 | 17.2 | 19.0 | 0.71 | 892 | 10.5 | 10.3 | 0.69 | 1710 | −1.6 | 0.73 | |
| B. Among women with infants 6–11 months old | 811 | 23.6 | 17.5 | 0.13 | 726 | 18.9 | 18.0 | 0.71 | 1547 | 5.3 | 0.42 | |
| Child aged 6–11 months old received DPT3 vaccination¶ | 7 | 810 | 47.4 | 58.9 | 0.01 | 748 | 78.6 | 85.6 | 0.03 | 1558 | −5.1 | 0.98 |
*Survey-weighted percentages and counts are reported to account for the survey design. Survey logistic regression models were performed that accounted for village as the primary sampling unit and subcentre as the primary stratum within the sampling unit, with proportional sampling weights at the maternal respondent/household level; each model also included maternal age (as a continuous variable) and caste (non-Hindu, Hindu scheduled caste/scheduled tribe (SC/ST), Hindu not SC/ST).
†See box 1 for further description of the goals.
‡Separate regression models were conducted for each outcome, at baseline and postimplementation; p values reflect comparisons of the intervention and control groups at each time point.
§In order to estimate the effect of the TBGI intervention on a particular indicator, we conducted a separate regression model for each outcome that included all maternal respondents. These models each contained a term representing time (baseline or postimplementation), a term representing treatment (intervention or control) and an interaction of these two terms, which is represented by the difference-in-difference (DID) estimator and its p value. The DID reflects treatment effects (positive values reflect the amount of improvement attributable to the intervention).
¶Vaccination was reported based on immunisation card or self-report.
DPT3, diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus; IFA, iron-folic acid; n.a., not applicable.