Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 290

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How to do (or not to do) … Assessing the impact of a policy change with routine longitudinal data

Open access
Lagarde, Mylene·2012·Health Policy and Planning

Abstract

A lack of good quality evidence on the effect of alternative social policies in low- and middle-income countries has been recently underlined and the value of randomized trials increasingly advocated. However, it is also acknowledged that randomization is not always feasible or politically acceptable. Analyses using longitudinal data series before and after an intervention can also deliver robust results and such data are often reasonably easy to access. Using the example of evaluating the impact on utilization of a change in health financing policy, this article explains how studies in the literature have often failed to address the possible biases that can arise in a simple analysis of routine longitudinal data. It then describes two possible statistical approaches to estimate impact in a more reliable manner and illustrates in detail the more simple method. Advantages and limitations of this quasi-experimental approach to evaluating the impact of health policies are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/heapol/czr004

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 290

Metadata

Authors
Lagarde, M.
Venue
Health Policy and Planning
Published
2011-01-27
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
76-83
ISSN
  • 0268-1080 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2237
OpenAlex
W2105290135
Cited by
290
References
2
FWCI
10.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.