Back

Co-coverage of social protection programs and maternal and child nutrition interventions in Bangladesh, India and Nepal

Scott, S.; Neupane, S.; Tasic, H.; Akseer, N.; Kim, S.; Alderman, H.; Carducci, B.; Heidkamp, R.

2025-01-23 public and global health
10.1101/2025.01.22.25320966 medRxiv
Show abstract

Social protection programs (SPPs) are common in South Asia, a global malnutrition hotspot. Provision of SPP benefits as well as essential health/nutrition interventions to mothers and children are goals for optimal health and development outcomes, but the degree of co-coverage of SPPs and health/nutrition interventions among beneficiary households is poorly described. Using six population-based surveys from 2012 to 2019 in Bangladesh, India, and Nepal (n=253,703 women with children under five years of age), we examined data availability for SPPs (food and cash transfers) and health/nutrition interventions, and estimated their coverage and co-coverage during a womans last pregnancy (interventions: take-home food rations plus at least four antenatal care visits, receipt of at least 100 iron-folic acid tablets, deworming, and tetanus injections), after delivery (cash benefit plus the interventions above), and in children (take-home ration for the child plus vitamin A supplementation, deworming, iron syrup, growth monitoring, and nutrition counseling). In India, 52% and 51% of women and children, respectively, received food transfers, but only 3% and 8% received food plus all health/nutrition interventions. In India and Nepal, respectively, cash after delivery was received by 41% and 86% of women, but only 2% and 21% received cash after delivery plus all health/nutrition interventions. There was insufficient data to estimate coverage of both SPPs and health/nutrition interventions in Bangladesh. Our findings highlight the need for data on both SPP and health/nutrition intervention coverage in household surveys. There are missed opportunities to reach women and children with interventions across multiple sectors.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.