Incentives for pregnant mothers during antenatal care for better maternal and neonatal health outcomes in low and middle income countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ramesh Holla; Rosemol Johnson; Nisha A Khader; Mithun Rao; Bhaskaran Unnikrishnan; Anju Sinha; Darshan BB; Ravishankar N

doi:10.12688/f1000research.159261.2

Home Browse Incentives for pregnant mothers during antenatal care for better maternal...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Systematic Review

Revised

Incentives for pregnant mothers during antenatal care for better maternal and neonatal health outcomes in low and middle income countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

[version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]

Ramesh Holla ¹, Rosemol Johnson¹, Nisha A Khader¹, [...] Mithun Rao¹, Bhaskaran Unnikrishnan¹, Anju Sinha², Darshan BB¹, Ravishankar N³

Ramesh Holla ¹, Rosemol Johnson¹, [...] Nisha A Khader¹, Mithun Rao¹, Bhaskaran Unnikrishnan¹, Anju Sinha², Darshan BB¹, Ravishankar N³

PUBLISHED 29 May 2025

Author details Author details

¹ Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India
² Division of Reproductive, Maternal and Child Health, Indian Council of Medical Research, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India
³ Department of Biostatistics, Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India

Ramesh Holla
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Rosemol Johnson
Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Nisha A Khader
Roles: Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Mithun Rao
Roles: Software, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Bhaskaran Unnikrishnan
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Anju Sinha
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Darshan BB
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Ravishankar N
Roles: Methodology, Software, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway.

Abstract

Background

Universal access to maternal, newborn, and child healthcare is essential for achieving Sustainable Development Goal 3, but the effectiveness of various incentive-based programs for pregnant mothers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains uncertain. Objective of this systematic review was to determine if incentive-based interventions influenced maternal and neonatal health outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a search in various databases from inception. All incentive-based interventional studies conducted on pregnant women in LMICs were included. Evidence from the included trials was synthesized using risk ratios (RRs) to compare the outcomes between groups receiving incentives and not receiving incentives. The meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects model. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and reviewed the collected data to determine its suitability for meta-analysis. This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021247681).

Results

Of the 3,897 records that were identified, 11 met eligibility criteria, all of which exhibited varying degrees of risk of bias, ranging from high to some concerns. Analysis of maternal outcomes across studies revealed no significant differences in the likelihood of delivering at a healthcare facility (RR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.47) and in frequency of prenatal care (RR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.12) between intervention and control groups. However, high levels of statistical heterogeneity were observed for both outcomes indicating variability among study results. Similarly, analysis of tetanus vaccine coverage showed no significant difference between groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.08), with moderate statistical heterogeneity observed.

Conclusion

The maternal and neonatal outcomes examined in this review did not have any significant differences in intervention group when compared to the control group. The interventions to address maternal health concerns need to follow a multifactorial approach. There is a need for extensive primary research studies in the future.

Keywords

Pregnancy, incentive-based interventions, public health interventions, trials, maternal outcomes, neonatal outcomes

Corresponding author: Ramesh Holla

Competing interests: One of the authors (AS) has non-financial competing interests as she is an employee of the funding agency. She has read the manuscript and provided critical substantive comments. The other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Grant information: This work was supported by the Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, Government of India. File No. 5/7/1725/CH/Adhoc-RBMCH.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2025 Holla R et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Holla R, Johnson R, Khader NA et al. Incentives for pregnant mothers during antenatal care for better maternal and neonatal health outcomes in low and middle income countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2025, 13:1512 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159261.2) First published: 09 Dec 2024, 13:1512 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159261.1) Latest published: 29 May 2025, 13:1512 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159261.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

The Introduction and Discussion sections have been modified by incorporating the suggestions from the reviewer which also includes the addition of SDG goals and targets.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Nicola McMeekin

Introduction

The global data highlights significant disparities in Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) and Neonatal Mortality Rates (NMR) between higher-income countries (HICs) and low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) - 2030 aims to reduce the MMR to less than 70 per 100000 live births,¹ yet many LMICs remain far from achieving this target. Similarly, NMR continue to be challenge in several regions.

The effectiveness of healthcare systems is often gauged by maternal and neonatal mortality rates, key indicators that reflect direct health outcomes and encompass broader aspects like healthcare accessibility, service quality, and social health determinants.² These mortality statistics are used as indicators for pregnancy-related complications, perinatal health risks, and the efficacy of pre- and post-natal interventions.³ Pregnancy-related complications can arise due to conditions unique to pregnancy or preexisting conditions that become exacerbated during gestation. These complications may lead to serious consequences, including miscarriage, preterm labour, premature rupture of membranes, stillbirth, low birth weight, macrosomia, birth defects, and maternal or neonatal morbidity and mortality. Such complications can occur at any stage of pregnancy, during labour, or postpartum, affecting both maternal and foetal health.⁴

According to the United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN IGME) - 2020, children born in South Africa or Asia are more likely to die compared to children born in developed economies.⁵ The Million Death Study (2015) found that, neonatal mortality in India was particularly high in rural areas, largely attributed to premature births and low birth weights.⁶ In view of the current trends, it will be difficult for India to achieve the NMR targets for the SDG-2030 and National Health Policy 2025.⁷

A gap analysis indicated that Liberia would take an additional 12.5 years beyond 2030 to meet SDG target for MMR, with similar 12.9-year delay projected for NMR.⁸ Countries like Mauritania, and Algeria too are far away from reaching the targets of SDG goals.⁹ Another study conducted by Iván Mejía-Guevara et al., based on assessments of survey data from 31 countries in the Sub-Saharan African region has demonstrated that only 2 countries out of the 31 would meet the target of NMR by 2030. The model also forecasts that 13 countries would achieve the target between 2030 to 2050; while the remaining 13 countries are likely to succeed after 2050. However, mortality projections were unavailable for 3 countries due to data quality limitations.¹⁰

What is already known?

Incentive-based interventions, including Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) and vouchers, have been implemented globally with some success in various maternal and neonatal health programs.¹¹^,¹² These initiatives have been implemented across various settings to overcome healthcare access barriers, contributing to enhanced maternal health practices and positive birth outcomes.¹³^–¹⁹

A systematic review on psychosocial interventions among pregnant women for smoking cessation found that incentives influenced smoking reduction but the effect on outcome measures pertaining to low birth weight, preterm births, and mean birth weight was not clear owing to small sample sizes.²⁰

A previously conducted systematic review has shown only limited evidence that incentives may improve the frequency of prenatal care. This evidence is based on 5 trials and participants were majorly drawn only from low-income communities in Central America and North America.¹⁷ A review of literature by Morgan et al., in 2013 showed that various types of incentives increased the number of antenatal care visits based on evidence from various studies conducted in LMICs. This study examined the allocation of incentives, considering both the demand side involving patients and the supply side involving healthcare providers, government agencies, and other stakeholders.²¹

In a systematic review published in 2014, the evidence regarding five modes of demand-side financing was evaluated, focusing on their impact on out-of-pocket expenditure, utilization of health services, and cost-effectiveness. In addition, the study assessed maternal, perinatal, infant mortality, and morbidity among the poor and socially excluded pregnant women from LMICs. The study found that financing modes like cash transfers, conditional cash transfers and vouchers targeted for pregnant women increased the institutional deliveries and utilisation of antenatal and postnatal services. Evidence concerning maternal and neonatal mortality was sparse owing to the small sample size and shorter follow-up periods.²² This systematic review has considered quantitative studies and qualitative studies. The study fails to clarify the design of intervention studies involved in the reviews and makes it difficult to relate the effect size to the various types of interventions.

The evidence generated in some of these reviews regarding the effectiveness of the provision of incentives for pregnant women focuses on a limited number of maternal and neonatal health outcomes like low birth weight, frequency of prenatal care, maternal and neonatal mortality. These reviews do not investigate any of the incentive-based behaviour change interventions that are also known to play a role in the prevention of pregnancy-related complications. This could include incentive-based tobacco and alcohol cessation, diet control intervention studies among pregnant women, etc.

Rationale: Why is this important?

For an effective continuum of care, it is essential to strengthen the link between the home, the primary health care facility and the referral centres.⁸ Studies from various countries have shown that there is a higher risk of poor pregnancy-related outcomes when the antenatal care received is inadequate.^23–25 In accordance with the revised antenatal care guidelines 2016, the WHO recommends a minimum of eight contacts to reduce perinatal mortality and pregnancy complications.²⁶ There are various SBCE (Social Behavioural Community Engagement) interventions that facilitate the mobilisation of individuals, their family members, and communities for improving maternal and newborn health.²⁷ Demand-side financing is one of the SBCE interventions to promote the utilisation of health services for better health outcomes.²⁸ These include vouchers, Cash transfers, temporary payments, etc.

As per our knowledge, there are no comprehensive reviews focussing on the effectiveness of various incentive-based interventions that are targeted only for pregnant women during the antenatal period regarding broader outcome measures like the proportion of pregnancy, childbirth-related complications, perinatal deaths and proportion of preterm deliveries in resource-constrained settings that follows rigorous methodology of Systematic reviews. We aim to fill in the gap based on the work undertaken in previous reviews regarding the outcomes and the methodology. It is known that behavioural economics has potential in the formulation of effective health policies. Designing the incentives accordingly is one of the tools in the behavioural approach.²⁹ This review of trials is thus essential to inform the effectiveness of incentive-based programmes targeted for pregnant women in LMICs. It will help the policy makers to utilise the resources more effectively and to integrate the evidence-based public health initiatives into the health system.

Our research questions are as follows:

1. Does the provision of incentives to pregnant mothers during the antenatal care period achieve better maternal and neonatal health outcomes than the absence of such services for pregnant women?

1a. What are the effects of incentives (any type) on the uptake of antenatal care services/utilisation of antenatal health care services (frequency of antenatal care, proportion of institutional delivery)?

1b. What are the effects of incentives (any type) on maternal and neonatal morbidity (proportion of preterm deliveries, low birthweight (less than 2500 g), proportion of antenatal and postnatal complications, compliance to Iron and Folic Acid (IFA) tablets intake and Tetanus Toxoid Injection (Inj TT) coverage, coverage and utilisation of maternal incentive based nutritional interventions, cessation of smoking, alcohol, tobacco, or any other unhealthy behavioural practises)?

1c. What are the effects of incentives (any type) on maternal and neonatal mortality (neonatal deaths, maternal deaths)?

Objectives of our review

• To determine if any of the incentive-based interventions had an effect on maternal outcomes (proportion of antenatal and postnatal complications, proportion of institutional delivery, frequency of antenatal care, maternal deaths, compliance to IFA tablets intake and Inj TT coverage, coverage and utilisation of maternal incentive based nutritional interventions, cessation of smoking, alcohol, tobacco or any other unhealthy behavioural practises)
• To determine if any of the incentive-based interventions had an effect on neonatal health outcomes (proportion of preterm deliveries, low birthweight (less than 2500 g), perinatal and neonatal deaths)

Method

We have published the protocol for this systematic review³⁰ and followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).³¹

Identification, selection, and eligibility criteria

We used the following Population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format to assess and select articles.

1. Population: We have included all incentive-based interventional studies conducted on pregnant women in LMICs. We have adhered to the definition of low-middle-income economies as per World Bank 2019, “lower-middle-income economies are those with a Gross National Income (GNI) per capita between $1,026 and $3,995”.³² We excluded studies conducted among pregnant women who belong to low- and middle-income countries but reside in high-income countries during the antenatal and postnatal period. We have excluded studies that involve pregnant women living in developed countries but belonging to low-income families/communities. We define immigrants as people who migrate from one country to another country. So, women who hold citizenship in a low-middle-income country but reside in high, upper-middle and low-income countries during pregnancy will be excluded.
2. We excluded studies that focused on incentives targeted towards healthcare providers, government agencies or other supply stakeholders.
3. Intervention: We have included all interventions that consider incentives given to pregnant mothers linked to their antenatal care, which are usually not offered to pregnant mothers as standard prenatal care. We did not place any restrictions on the modes of financing such as conditional cash transfers, vouchers, transport services, in-kind goods, mama kits (basic supplies that are required at childbirth), co-payments etc.
4. Comparator: The interventions of our interest were compared to routine antenatal care (no incentives), no intervention or any other type of intervention that is not considered as incentive. We did not restrict the definition of usual care/routine antenatal care.
5. Outcomes: The outcomes of interest are categorised as neonatal outcomes and maternal outcomes. Neonatal outcomes of interest are as follows:
- • Proportion of preterm deliveries (percentage of babies born alive before completing 37 weeks of pregnancy).³³
- • Low birthweight (birth weight less than 2500 g).³⁴
- • Perinatal deaths (“Deaths occurring at perinatal period that is lasting from 28^th week of gestation to the seventh day after the birth”).³⁵
- • Neonatal deaths (“Death occurring during the neonatal period, commencing at birth and ending 28 completed days after birth”).³⁶
Maternal outcomes are as follows:
- • Frequency of antenatal care (number of visits and the content of care)
- • Proportion of antenatal and postnatal complications.
- • Proportion of institutional delivery.
- • Maternal deaths.
- • Compliance to IFA tablets, intake and Inj TT coverage.
- • Coverage and utilisation of maternal incentive-based nutritional interventions.
- • Cessation of smoking, alcohol, tobacco, or any other unhealthy behavioural practices.

We have excluded studies that did not measure at least one of the above outcomes.

Search strategy

The search strategy is added in the repository and is cited in the data availability statement. Searches were finalised and conducted on different databases from inception until 2021. We searched Medline, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Embase for relevant records. The PICO acronym was used to describe the search strategy. Additionally, hand searching was carried out on the Cochrane Central database. Records were additionally retrieved from Google Scholar, and the reference lists of included studies were examined.

Data collection and analyses

The screening process was conducted using the Covidence software (https://www.covidence.org/). Initially, two reviewers screened titles, followed by abstract screening according to specified eligibility criteria. The full-text screening was then independently carried out by two reviewers. Ineligible records were excluded with specific reasons documented in flow chart ( Figure 1). Any discrepancies were resolved through discussions between the two reviewers. Additionally, we have documented ongoing trial protocols are added in the repository and is cited in the data availability statement.^37–39

Figure 1. Identification of the included studies.

The data was extracted by one reviewer in the data extraction form under the following headings: study ID, author details, publication year, country details, participant details, intervention details, comparators, outcomes, type of incentive, funding details and type of setting (rural or urban). A second author verified the extracted information. The data was entered into Review Manager (RevMan) version 5 (https://revman.cochrane.org/) (Cochrane Collaboration) by one author and verified by another author. Predefined outcomes that contained analysable data were as follows: Frequency of antenatal care, compliance to Inj TT coverage, the proportion of institutional delivery, proportion of women who received iron tablets and low birthweight.

The risk of bias was assessed using the tools mentioned in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.⁴⁰ This assessment was independently conducted by two investigators. In case of disagreements, a third investigator was involved for the resolution of the same. The ROB-2 tool (version 2019) (https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized-trials was used for the studies with randomised study designs. The variant of the ROB 2 tool adapted for) cluster randomised trials (2021 version) was used for cluster randomised trials. We evaluated and reported the results in ‘Risk of Bias’ tables. (The data on ‘Risk of Bias” tables has been added in the repository and is cited in the data availability statement)

We synthesized the evidence both narratively and graphically, using forest plots. Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted for certain outcomes with available data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to compare outcomes between the two groups and performed a random-effects meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic, Tau², and the Chi² test.

Results

Characteristics of included studies

A total of 3824 records were imported into Covidence software (https://www.covidence.org/) for screening, sourced from various databases: Embase (1350), CINAHL (217), Web of Science (637), Scopus (460), Medline (960), and Google Scholar (200). After removing 721 duplicates, 3103 records underwent screening based on their titles and abstracts using Covidence software. We could not export records from Cochrane (CENTRAL) to Covidence. Hence those records (73) were screened separately on Excel. We assessed 212 full texts for eligibility. We could retrieve 14 records (10 studies) on Covidence. In addition, 8 records (1 study) were found through backward and forward citation searches. Altogether we have included 11 studies for data extraction ( Figure 1). We did not find any studies that focussed on incentive-based behaviour change intervention conducted in LMICs during the antenatal care period among pregnant women for e.g. incentive-based smoking/tobacco cessation interventions, incentivised nutrition-focussed interventions for appropriate dietary behaviour during pregnancy, etc.

The detailed characteristics of the included studies are mentioned in the Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of included study.

Author, Year and Study Duration	Country	Study Design	Participant Characteristics	Intervention Details	Outcomes
Barber, 2009 Study Duration: 6 Years	Mexico	Cluster-randomised controlled Trial	Women with a history of childbirth from 1997-2003 from low-income communities, either in the intervention or control group Age: 15-49 years	Cash transfers up to ~$15/month were provided. Additionally, households received bonuses for education. Control group: Received benefits after 2 years	Caesarean rate, delivery location, quality of prenatal care, birthweight, child growth, haemoglobin, cognitive development, language, and behavioural problems. Tool used: Administrative records from facilities and surveys
Morris, 2004 Study duration: 24 months	Honduras	Cluster-randomised controlled trial	Pregnant women and mothers of children residing in areas recorded in a mid-2000 census Age: Not mentioned	Four groups: 1) Household-level package alone (received monthly vouchers worth 55 Lempiras) 2) Service-level package alone (quality improvement teams) 3) Both packages 4) Standard services (control) The service-level package was for system strengthening. Only household level data has been taken into account for this study	Adequate use of prenatal care (≥ 5 visits), postpartum check-up within 10 days of delivery, children <3 years taken to a health center in the past 30 days, immunisation rates, and growth monitoring. Tool used: Evaluation surveys (baseline and post-intervention)
Okeke, 2019 Study duration: March 2017 to August 2018	Nigeria	Cluster-randomised controlled trial	Households with 1^st or 2^nd trimester pregnant women Mean age: Intervention: 24.8 years Control: 24.6 years	$14 payment was provided to households in the intervention group. Households in control group communities received gifts of nominal value at follow-up for participation	Overall child survival, foetal death, early infant death, neonatal deaths, and post-neonatal deaths Tool used: Baseline and follow-up interview
Liu, 2019 Study duration: August 1, 2015 to April 19, 2017	Akwa Ibom, Nigeria	Individual-level randomised controlled trial	Pregnant women testing positive for HIV during antenatal care registration	HIV-positive women registering for ANC were eligible to receive up to 3 transfers during their pregnancy through 10 weeks after birth for achieving milestones: 7000 Naira (~US$24) after ANC registration plus 300 Naira (~US$1) of mobile phone credits (“Transfer 1”); 20,000 Naira (~US$70) when the participant gave birth at the same health facility where she registered for ANC (“Transfer 2”); and 6000 Naira (~US$20) when she returned to the facility to obtain an early infant diagnosis (EID) test for HIV (“Transfer 3”). Women in the control group received routine care.	Percentage of pregnant women who delivered their baby at the facility in which they were first enrolled for ANC, percentage of mothers who obtained an early infant diagnosis testing 6–8 weeks after giving birth to their child at the facility in which they were first enrolled for ANC. Tool used: Hospital records and additional surveys
Briaux, 2020	Northern Togo	Parallel cluster randomised controlled trial	Mothers and their children, 6-29 months old Mean age: Intervention: 29.3 years Control: 28.7 years	The intervention arm benefited from the ICCM-Nut program, CCPWs’ package of activities, and unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (US$8.40/month) during their child’s “first 1,000 days” of life (from pregnancy to their second birthday) The control arm received benefits from the ICCM-Nut program along with the BCC activities only	HAZ, stunting (HAZ < −2 SD) among 6- to 29-month-old children, dietary diversity scores (DDSs) Tool used: Baseline and endline surveys
Hemminki, 2021	China	Cluster randomised trial	Pregnant women who utilised maternity care during the designated period were participants in the financial intervention arm Age: Not mentioned	Financial Intervention: Women were given 5 RMB if they had 1-3 check-ups and visit, RMB 10 for those who had 4-5 checkups and visits; RMB 15 for those with 6-7 checkups and visits, and RMB 20 for women with 8 checkups and visits Clinical intervention: Included three sessions of training in each county conducted by the obstetricians, gynaecologists and other health care professionals	First visit\3 months, prenatal visits 5, recommendation for hospitalisation, birth at higher level hospital, postnatal visits 1, content of care that includes breastfeeding 4+ (months), caesarean section, ultrasound 3+, anaemia test 1, blood pressure 3+, danger signs advice, no milk substitute Tool used: Mothers’ interviews were conducted to measure these outcomes.
Handa, 2016	Zambia	Cluster randomised trial	Mixed population of women and children below three years of age at program initiation [This program was specifically not designed to cater to the needs of pregnant women.]	A fixed amount of 60 Zambian kwacha was given on bimonthly basis to the primary female adult with children under the age of three	The program was primarily designed to evaluate the impact on child outcomes, including the following key areas: 1. Morbidity among children aged 0–60 months 2. Use of services among children aged 0–60 months 3. Nutritional status and feeding practices 4. Early childhood development indicators 5. Child needs being met 6. Education outcomes 7. Women’s decision-making For maternal utilization outcomes, the following were assessed: 1. Antenatal care (from a doctor or nurse) 2. At least four antenatal visits 3. Quality of antenatal care, defined by receiving Voluntary Counselling and Testing (VCT) for HIV, tetanus vaccination, and malaria treatment during antenatal care 4. Skilled attendance at birth (from a doctor or nurse) Tool used to measure outcomes: Baseline and follow-up surveys.
Wang, 2016	Zambia	Cluster randomised trial	Women who met the following criteria were included: 1. Delivered at a treatment facility during this time, or 2. Came to deliver at a treatment facility but were referred to another facility for medical reasons. Mean age: Intervention: 25.24 years Control: 24.79 years	Mama kit intervention consisted of items worth US$4 that include cloth (chitenge), baby diaper and blanket	Facility delivery Tool used: Semi structure interview for preference of items in mama kit intervention and administrative records from facilities
Kahn, 2015	Kisoro, Uganda	Multi-arm trial	Pregnant women over the age of 18 from selected villages were enrolled into the study when they presented for antenatal care at Muramba Health Centre Level III, KDH, or St. Francis Mutolere Hospital Mean age: Intervention groups: 25.4, 26.4, 23.8 years Control: 25.6 years	Modest cash transfers for participation in antenatal care. Intervention group 1: Cash incentives: 0.20 USD/ visit, Intervention group 2: Cash incentives: 0.40 USD/visit OR Intervention group 3: Cash incentives: 0.40 USD/once	Three or more antenatal visits and delivery in a health facility Tool used: Self-reports from participants and health care workers, record logs that were documented by midwives
Grepin, 2019	Kenya	Randomised controlled trial	1. Households with pregnant/lactating mothers or married women who were pregnant in the last two years 2. Households with children aged 6-15 years and 3. All other households [Note: we have included the study since the program targeted a mixed population that showed improved utilisation of health care among pregnant women]	PKH Program: Quarterly cash transfers ranging from Rp 200,000 to Rp 600,000 were given to households to address the issue of poverty PKH Consists of 1. Cash given to mothers quarterly; 2. Conditionality and cash penalty; 3. Field facilitators; and 4. Improvements in supply-side readiness. First, the cash, collected by mothers through the nearest post office, ranges from $60-220 per household per year depending on the number and age of children. The fixed amount is $20 per year. If a mother is pregnant and/or has children aged 0-6 years, she will receive additional $80 per year, regardless of the number of children. If a mother has one child at primary school, she will receive an additional $40 per year. If a mother has one child at secondary school, she will receive an additional $80 per year	Quality of human resources, poverty reduction, improved socio-economic condition of poor households, improved health and nutritional status of pregnant women, access to quality education and health Tool used: Surveys and qualitative studies
Kusuma, 2016	Indonesia	Cluster randomised controlled trial	Households (14,000 for PKH and 12,000 for Generasi) Women, with a focus on maternal health and higher-risk women Age: Not mentioned	The study did not have data pertaining to pregnant women alone. However, we have included the study since the program targeted a mixed population that showed improved utilisation of health care among pregnant women	Women's health knowledge, preferences for delivery locations, and financial barriers to accessing services, as well as the utilization of health services such as prenatal and postnatal visits, assisted deliveries, and facility deliveries

Participant, study design and setting

Total number of pregnancies were 19565 from 10 studies. One study by Kusuma et al.,⁴¹ did not have data pertaining to pregnant women alone. However, we have included the study since the program targeted a mixed population that showed improved healthcare utilisation among pregnant women. The study duration ranged from 3 months to 6 years. Out of the 11 included trials, 8 studies were cluster RCTs^41–48 and the remaining 3 studies were individually randomised parallel controlled trials.^49–51

Participants in seven of the studies lived in rural areas^{42,43,46–48,50,51} while three had residents from rural, semi-rural or urban areas^44,45,49 One study had an urban population.⁴¹ Four studies^41,43,44,47 had a population comprising both pregnant women along with mothers and lactating women. These studies were included since they had done subgroup analysis for pregnant women participants. While seven studies had only pregnant women as participants.^{42,45,46,48–51}

All seven cluster RCTs have followed adequate accounting of cluster unit randomization in their analysis except Kusuma et al., 2016.⁴¹ The studies included in the review were conducted in the following low- and middle-income countries: Uganda, Honduras, China, Kenya, Togo, Mexico, and Indonesia. Two of the studies were conducted in Zambia^44,48 and two more in Nigeria.^45,49 Eight studies were government-based interventions for the community.^{41,43–48,50} One of the studies was carried out by local Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)⁴⁹ while the other one was funded by an international agency.⁴²

Maternal outcomes

We performed a meta-analysis for the three outcomes listed below, with the effects of the intervention shown in Table 2. Five RCTs did not have data for the outcome suitable for meta-analysis.

1. Delivered at the facility: There was no clear difference between the two groups [Risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.47, 2676 women, two studies]. There was a high level of statistical heterogeneity. (I² = 76%, Tau² = 0.03 and Chi² test for heterogeneity P = 0.04) ( Figure 2).
2. Frequency of prenatal care: There was no clear difference between the two groups [RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12, 2955 women, four studies]. There was a high level of statistical heterogeneity. (I² = 76%, Tau² = 0.01 and Chi² test for heterogeneity (P = 0.006) ( Figure 3). Another study provided details about prenatal visits, but we could not access the data due to its unavailability in the published reports. In the intervention households, the frequency of four or more prenatal visits increased by 4 points in percentage. Also, the likelihood of mothers completing 4 prenatal check-ups increased by 21 per cent.⁴¹
In another study by Kahn et al., the odds of women (odds ratio) attending three or more ANC visits was 1.7.⁵⁰
3. Received Tetanus vaccine: There was no clear difference between the two groups [RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.08, 1876 women, two studies]. There was a moderate level of statistical heterogeneity. (I² = 48%, Tau² = 0.00 and Chi² test for heterogeneity P = 0.17) ( Figure 4).

Table 2. Effect of interventions.

Outcomes of Interest	Effect size	Author (Year publication)
Maternal Outcomes
Delivered at the facility	1.32 (1.04, 1.66)	Liu, 2021
Delivered at the facility	1.00 (0.88, 1.14)	Wang, 2016
Frequency of prenatal care:	1.04(0.95, 1.15)	Briaux, 2020
	0.85(0.75, 0.97)	Handa, 2016
	0.95(0.85, 1.05)	Hemminki, 2021
	1.18(1.01, 1.38)	Morris, 2004
Received Tetanus vaccine:	1.02[0.99, 1.05]	Briaux, 2020
Received Tetanus vaccine:	0.95 [0.84, 1.08]	Morris, 2004
Compliance to IFA tablets intake:	1.53 [0.98, 2.39]	Briaux, 2020
Neonatal Outcome
Low birthweight:	1.58 [0.94, 2.64]	Briaux, 2020

Figure 2. Effect of incentive-based intervention on the maternal outcome delivered at the facility.

Figure 3. Effect of incentive-based intervention on frequency of prenatal care.

Figure 4. Effect of incentive-based intervention on tetanus vaccine.

Whereas, for the compliance to IFA tablet intake only one study has reported data for iron tablet intake by pregnant women, hence no meta-analysis could be performed. Also, no data was available for the outcomes such as maternal death, coverage and utilisation of maternal incentive-based nutritional interventions, proportion of antenatal and postnatal complications, and cessation of smoking, alcohol, tobacco, or any other unhealthy behavioural practices.

Neonatal outcomes

1. Low birthweight: Only one study has given details about the same. Another study did not assess birthweight as its primary outcome.⁴⁶ The program showed a 127.3 g increase in birthweight among the intervention group and a reduction of 4.6 percentage in the incidence of low birth weight.⁴⁶
2. Perinatal and neonatal deaths: Only one study had given details about neonatal deaths. However, the data has not been adequate to conduct any analysis. The study has mentioned that the decrease in foetal deaths drove the increase in child survival. There was a reduction in foetal deaths, with a decrease ranging from 1.1 to 1.3 percentage points or a relative decrease of 23% compared to the control group.⁴⁵ The other study has not given specific details regarding mortality rates for newborns. Also, the definitions used in the study were not clear. The study showed that at baseline there were 0.17 mortality events (among 6- to 11-month-olds) per Kecamatan in control areas and only 0.12 mortality events in Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH) areas. At follow-up, those numbers had fallen to 0.09 and 0.08 respectively. So, there was no significant effect on the same.⁴¹

Risk of bias assessment

The risk of bias was independently assessed by two reviewers. We evaluated the risk of bias (ROB) of results from 6 RCTs that contributed to our analyses. We made no assessment of bias for 5 studies as they did not report relevant data or outcomes for this review. The completed RoB 2 tool with responses to all assessed signalling questions has been added in the repository and is cited in the data availability statement.

1. Frequency of prenatal care: Among the four studies reporting this outcome, three were assessed to have some concern regarding risk of bias, while the remaining study was considered to have a high risk of bias.^42–44,47 In two of the studies, the protocol was unavailable,^44,47 leaving uncertainty regarding potential deviations from the intended interventions, particularly in Handa’s study from 2016.⁴⁴ Morris’s study from 2004⁴⁷ was judged to be at high risk of bias due to identified deviations in the study, attributed to lack of legal measures for transportation of resources and other challenges that they encountered during the study period. All of the studies were non-blinded since it is often not feasible in community-level interventions. Hence, they were all judged as having some concerns in risk of bias assessment.
2. Received Tetanus Vaccine: One of the studies had high risk of bias while another study had some concerns.^43,47 Protocol was not available in one study.⁴⁷ While in the other study, there was no information on concealment of allocation sequence.⁴³ Hence the study was found to have some concerns of bias.
3. Delivery in a health facility: There was no information on the pre-specified analysis plans prior to the start of the study. Hence the study by Liu et al., 2019 was found to have some concerns of bias.⁴⁹ The study by Wang et al., was also found to have some concerns of bias because there was no adequate information regarding the randomization process.⁴⁸

Overall, these studies exhibited various concerns regarding risk of bias. Incentives differed, including vouchers, cash transfers, and mama kits, which may limit their generalizability across different communities in LMICs. Additionally, the insufficient data prevented us from conducting a subgroup analysis based on incentive types. The meta-analysis included fewer than ten studies, so we did not perform a funnel plot. There is a potential for publication bias, especially since we did not search trial registries in LMIC regions.

Discussion

We retrieved 11 studies that involved incentives for pregnant women. Six studies examined the outcome frequency of prenatal care. However, only 4 of the studies had data that could be incorporated into meta-analysis.^42–44,47 The remaining 2 studies did not have data that could be analysed.^41,50

Seven studies examined the outcome of delivered at the facility/skilled attendance at birth but only 2 studies could be incorporated into meta-analysis^48,49 and 3 studies examined the receipt of tetanus vaccine during the antenatal period. However, only 2 of the studies could be incorporated into meta-analysis.^43,47 In the study by Handa et al., 2016,⁴⁴ tetanus vaccine is assessed as part of the quality of antenatal care assessment. No separate data was available, and there was no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Besides, data was available only for 3 of the outcomes of our interest. Only 6 studies had data that were suitable for meta-analysis. All the studies are from low- and middle-income countries. A study previously conducted in 2015, had included studies worldwide and had included only 5 studies. Only 2 studies out of the 5 had been conducted in low- and middle-income communities.²⁶ Our study, which was limited to low and middle-income countries, has included 11 studies in the review. Low birth weight was assessed only in one study by Briaux et al.⁴³ But it was assessed as the intermediary outcome in the study.

A systematic review conducted by Toolan et al. in 2021 investigated the impact of incentives, alongside other interventions, on maternal and neonatal health outcomes during the antenatal period.⁵² The authors did not perform a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes, and instead presented their findings narratively.

Only two studies in this review examined the effect of cash incentives given to women who attended four or more antenatal care (ANC) visits.^53,54 One of these studies was cross-sectional in nature,⁵³ while the other was qualitative in nature.⁵⁴ Bhatt et al.’s study found that both the maternal incentive scheme (MIS) and Aama policies significantly increased the utilization of four ANC visits and institutional deliveries in Nepal.⁵³ Flueckiger et al.’s study revealed that stakeholders, particularly mothers, perceived the monetary incentive as a motivating factor for attending ANC sessions, which led to increased attendance. In contrast, our study included six studies^{41–44,47,50} that assessed the frequency of prenatal care, but only four studies were included in the meta-analysis. While our study did not find a significant difference in the effect of intervention between the two groups, it is important to consider other factors that may have influenced the results, such as the duration of the intervention or the specific intervention strategies used in each group and the design of the study.

Previous systematic reviews examining the impact of incentives on maternal and neonatal health outcomes were limited by a small number of studies with small sample sizes, reducing the reliability of their finding. Similarly, our review did not identify a significantly large number of studies; however, most of the included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are generally well-proved to detect meaningful effects. This strengthens the overall evidence base and provides a more comprehensive understanding of how incentive-based interventions influence maternal and neonatal health outcomes.

Strengths and limitations of this study

The current systematic review has followed the methodology adopted in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.⁵⁵ The results generated out of this systematic review will inform or guide in implementing public health interventions and policies about incentive-based initiatives for pregnant women.

No restrictions concerning the publication year were followed for the search strategy.

We included all the financing modes implemented for pregnant women without any restrictions, including vouchers, transport incentives, in-kind goods, cash transfers, etc. However, the available evidence is limited to LMICs. The classification of LMICs has undergone significant changes in the past two years, particularly during the pandemic.^56,57 We did not have enough resources to include studies conducted in languages other than English in LMICs. We could have missed out on the effects of studies conducted in LMICs in regional languages. Additionally, we did not search registries or explore grey literature sources.

The inclusion of studies was restricted to English and those published in scientific journals.

Implications for research

The current review was limited to studies that were primarily concerned about demand-side incentives. In the future, studies should involve a combination of both demand and supply-side incentives. In addition, focus of trials should be on outcomes like neonatal and maternal mortality, postpartum complications, and skilled attendance at homes alongside institutional delivery.

It is likely that the very low number of studies in LMICs could be attributed to the very low incentives, investments, and infrastructure for research activities in the regions compared to high-income countries that leads to substantial disparities in the conduct of research studies. Studies on tobacco and smoking cessation were excluded since they were all conducted in high-income countries.^58–62 Most of the studies in the current review were funded by various external sources and some were conducted by the government. While a few were done in collaboration with the national government with the support of external funding. To promote more studies in LMICs in the future, national governments should prioritize extensive primary research.⁶³ Communities need to be empowered to conduct community-based research activities that enable them to identify issues and develop solutions for the same.⁶⁴

The outcomes examined in this review did not have any significant differences in the intervention group when compared to the control group.

The interventions to address maternal health concerns need to follow a multifactorial approach. Poverty is not the sole barrier for pregnant women to access healthcare services. Reports of obstetric violence/labour room violence have been commonly seen across India and the globe.^65–67 Efforts to address the same needs to be taken. In addition, one needs to address the challenges faced by health care workers,⁶⁸ including high patient numbers, resource limitations, and inadequate training in respectful maternity care, which can contribute to negative experiences for pregnant women.⁶⁹ Maternal and neonatal health is also influenced by socioeconomic and environmental factors.^70–72 In societies dominated by patriarchal norms, women often face lack of autonomy and decision-making power. This limitation frequently hinders their access to timely prenatal care and childbirth services.⁷³ Moreover, deeply ingrained cultural practices such as inclination towards giving birth at home or the dependence on traditional midwives can further deter facility-based deliveries.⁷⁴ Additionally, long travel distances, inadequate transport, and poor healthcare infrastructure create additional barriers, especially in rural and remote areas.^75,76 Addressing these multifaceted challenges requires community-based awareness programs, policy reforms, and strengthening of healthcare systems to ensure equitable and respectful maternal healthcare access.

Conclusion

Despite the extensive search yielding only 11 eligible studies from low- and middle-income countries, the analysis revealed varying degrees of bias across the selected studies. Our examination of maternal outcomes, including facility delivery, prenatal care frequency, and tetanus vaccine coverage, demonstrated no significant differences between intervention and control groups. However, high levels of statistical heterogeneity were observed, indicating considerable variability among study results. These findings underscore the complexity of addressing maternal health concerns and suggest that interventions require a multifactorial approach. Moreover, the moderate statistical heterogeneity observed for tetanus vaccine coverage suggests the need for further exploration. One study reported a modest increase in birthweight and a reduction in low birthweight incidence, but outcomes related to perinatal and neonatal deaths were inconclusive. Prospectively, there is a critical need for comprehensive primary research studies to better inform strategies aimed at improving maternal and neonatal health outcomes.

Reporting guidelines

Figshare: PRISMA checklist and flowchart: Incentives for pregnant mothers during antenatal care for better maternal and neonatal health outcomes in low and middle income countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.27916326.v1; https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.27915747.v2.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Ethics and consent

Ethical approval and consent were not required.

Data availability

Underlying data

No data are associated with this article.

Extended data

Figshare repository- “Extended data of “Incentives for pregnant mothers during antenatal care for better maternal and neonatal health outcomes in low and middle income countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis””.

This project contains the following extended datasets^77–79:

• Extended data of SR Incentive. (Contains search strategy, ROB tool and the ongoing protocol details.) 10.6084/m9.figshare.27916326.
• PRISMA Flowchart of SR incentive. (Contains PRISMA flowchart of the systematic review.) 10.6084/m9.figshare.27915747.
• PRISMA checklist of SR Incentive. (Contains PRISMA checklist of the systematic review) 10.6084/m9.figshare.27916326.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgement

We have published the protocol for this systematic review³⁰ and followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).³¹

This work was supported by the Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, Government of India.

References

1. Maternal and reproductive health [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 27]. Reference Source
2. Owusu PA, Sarkodie SA, Pedersen PA: Relationship between mortality and health care expenditure: Sustainable assessment of health care system. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021 Feb 1 [cited 2025 Mar 6];16(2): e0247413. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Gülmezoglu AM, Lawrie TA, Hezelgrave N, et al.: Interventions to Reduce Maternal and Newborn Morbidity and Mortality. Disease Control Priorities, Third Edition (Volume 2): Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health [Internet]. 2016 Apr 5 [cited 2025 Mar 6];115–136. Reference Source
4. Overview of pregnancy complications Straight to the point of care. 2024
5. Hug L, Lee S, Liu Y, et al.: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Trevor Croft, The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program. ICF; 2020.
6. Fadel SA, Rasaily R, Awasthi S, et al.: Changes in cause-specific neonatal and 1–59-month child mortality in India from 2000 to 2015: a nationally representative survey. Lancet. 2017 Oct; 390(10106): 1972–1980. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. Dandona R, Kumar GA, Henry NJ, et al.: Subnational mapping of under-5 and neonatal mortality trends in India: the Global Burden of Disease Study 2000–17. Lancet. 2020 May 23 [cited 2024 Aug 31]; 395(10237): 1640–1658. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Reference Source
8. Laaser U, Broniatowski R, Byepu S, et al.: Delays in Achieving Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health Targets for 2021 and 2030 in Liberia. Front Public Health. 2019 Dec 13; 7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Abousbie ZAS, Breckenkamp J, et al.: A gap analysis of SDG 3 and MDG 4/5mortality health targets in the six Arabic countries of North Africa: Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Mauritania. Libyan J Med. 2019 Jan 1; 14(1). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
10. Mejía-Guevara I, Zuo W, Bendavid E, et al.: Age distribution, trends, and forecasts of under-5 mortality in 31 sub-Saharan African countries: A modeling study. PLoS Med. 2019 Mar 12; 16(3): e1002757. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Wernimont SA, Fleener D, Summers KM, et al.: The Effect of Financial Incentives on Adherence to Glucose Self-Monitoring during Pregnancy among Patients with Insulin-Requiring Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Am J Perinatol [Internet]. 2024 May 14 [cited 2025 Mar 6];41(S 01): E259–E266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Hunter BM, Harrison S, Portela A, et al.: The effects of cash transfers and vouchers on the use and quality of maternity care services: A systematic review. PLoS One [Internet]. 2017 Mar 1 [cited 2025 Mar 6];12(3). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Powell-Jackson T, Mazumdar S, Mills A: Financial incentives in health: New evidence from India’s Janani Suraksha Yojana. J Health Econ. 2015 Sep 1; 43: 154–169. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare: Janani Suraksha Yojana: National Health Mission [Internet]. New Delhi: Government of India. cited 2025 May 22. Reference Source
15. Jacobs W, Downey LE: Impact of conditional cash transfer programmes on antenatal care service uptake in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2022 Nov 1 [cited 2025 Mar 9];12(11): e064673. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Scholarly Article or Book Chapter|Impact of Conditional Cash Transfers on Maternal and Newborn Health|ID: 5m60r066x|Carolina Digital Repository [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 9]. Reference Source
17. Till SR, Everetts D, Haas DM: Incentives for increasing prenatal care use by women in order to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2015 Dec 15 [cited 2025 Mar 9];2015(12): CD009916. Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
18. Notley C: Financial Incentives for Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy and Outcomes for Infants. JAMA Netw Open [Internet]. 2025 Mar 3 [cited 2025 Mar 9];8(3): e250247. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
19. McMeekin N, Sinclair L, Robinson-Smith L, et al.: Financial incentives for quitting smoking in pregnancy: Are they cost-effective? Addiction (Abingdon, England) [Internet]. 2023 Aug 1 [cited 2025 Mar 9];118(8): 1445–1456. PubMed Abstract
20. Chamberlain C, O’Mara-Eves A, Porter J, et al.: Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 14; 2020(3). Publisher Full Text
21. Morgan L, Stanton ME, Higgs ES, et al.: Financial Incentives and Maternal Health: Where Do We Go from Here?Reference Source
22. Murray SF, Hunter BM, Bisht R, et al.: Effects of demand-side financing on utilisation, experiences and outcomes of maternity care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Dec 17; 14(1): 30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Promoting Coverage Overview - AMCHP: [cited 2024 Sep 6]. Reference Source
24. Linard M, Blondel B, Estellat C, et al.: Association between inadequate antenatal care utilisation and severe perinatal and maternal morbidity: an analysis in the PreCARE cohort. BJOG. 2018 Apr 2; 125(5): 587–595. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Makate M, Makate C: The impact of prenatal care quality on neonatal, infant and child mortality in Zimbabwe: evidence from the demographic and health surveys. Health Policy Plan. 2017 Apr 1; 32(3): 395–404. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
26. New guidelines on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience.[cited 2024 Sep 9]. Reference Source
27. An evidence map of social, behavioural and community engagement interventions for reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health.[cited 2024 Sep 9]. Reference Source
28. Social, Behavioural and Community Engagement Interventions for Maternal Health.[cited 2024 Sep 9]. Reference Source Reference Source
29. Vlaev I, King D, Darzi A, et al.: Changing health behaviors using financial incentives: A review from behavioral economics. BMC Public Health. 2019 Aug 7 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 19(1): 1–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
30. Holla R, Unnikrishnan B, Vijayamma R, et al.: Incentives for pregnant mothers during antenatal care for better maternal and neonatal health outcomes in low and middle income countries: A systematic review protocol. F1000Res. 2022 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 11. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
31. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 372. Reference Source
32. WDI - Classifying countries by income: [cited 2024 Sep 9]. Reference Source
33. Preterm birth [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 10]. Reference Source
34. Low birth weight [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 10]. Reference Source
35. Park K: Preventive medicine in obstetrics, paediatrics and geriatrics. In. Park’s Textbook of Preventive and Social Medicine. 28th ed.Jabalpur, Banarsidas Bhanot; 2025; p. 656.
36. Park K: Preventive medicine in obstetrics, paediatrics and geriatrics. In. Park’s Textbook of Preventive and Social Medicine. 28th ed.Jabalpur, Banarsidas Bhanot; 2025; p. 657.
37. Nkangu MN, Okwen PM, Mbuagbaw L, et al.: A protocol for a pilot cluster randomized control trial of e-vouchers and mobile phone application to enhance access to maternal health services in Cameroon. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2020 Apr 14 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 6(1): 45. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
38. Xu T, Lai X, He K, et al.: Subsidy programme for gestational diabetes mellitus screening and lifestyle management in rural areas of western China: a study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 1 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 11(7): e045503. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Reference Source
39. Ochieng CA, Haghparast-Bidgoli H, Batura N, et al.: Conditional cash transfers to retain rural Kenyan women in the continuum of care during pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period: Protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2019 Mar 1 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 20(1): 1–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
40. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial|Cochrane Training.[cited 2024 Sep 9]. Reference Source
41. Kusuma D, Cohen J, McConnell M, et al.: Can cash transfers improve determinants of maternal mortality? Evidence from the household and community programs in Indonesia. Soc Sci Med. 2016 Aug 1; 163: 10–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
42. Hemminki E, Long Q, Zhang WH, et al.: Impact of financial and educational interventions on maternity care: results of cluster randomized trials in rural China, CHIMACA. Matern Child Health J. 2013 Feb [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 17(2): 208–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
43. Briaux J, Martin-Prevel Y, Carles S, et al.: Evaluation of an unconditional cash transfer program targeting children’s first-1,000-days linear growth in rural Togo: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2020 Nov 17 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 17(11): e1003388. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
44. Handa S, Peterman A, Seidenfeld D, et al.: Income Transfers and Maternal Health: Evidence from a National Randomized Social Cash Transfer Program in Zambia. Health Econ. 2016 Feb 1 [cited 2024 Sep 10]; 25(2): 225–236. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
45. Okeke EN, Abubakar IS: Healthcare at the beginning of life and child survival: Evidence from a cash transfer experiment in Nigeria. J Dev Econ. 2020 Mar 1; 143: 102426. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
46. Barber SL, Gertler PJ: Empowering women to obtain high quality care: evidence from an evaluation of Mexico’s conditional cash transfer programme. Health Policy Plan. 2009 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 24(1): 18–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
47. Morris SS, Flores R, Olinto P, et al.: Monetary incentives in primary health care and effects on use and coverage of preventive health care interventions in rural Honduras: Cluster randomised trial. Lancet. 2004 Dec 4 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 364(9450): 2030–2037. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Reference Source
48. Wang P, Connor AL, Guo E, et al.: Measuring the impact of non-monetary incentives on facility delivery in rural Zambia: a clustered randomised controlled trial. Trop Med Int Health. 2016 Apr 1 [cited 2024 Sep 10]; 21(4): 515–524. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
49. Liu JX, Shen J, Wilson N, et al.: Conditional cash transfers to prevent mother-to-child transmission in low facility-delivery settings: Evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Nigeria. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Jan 16 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 19(1): 1–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
50. Kahn C, Iraguha M, Baganizi M, et al.: Cash transfers to increase Antenatal care utilization in Kisoro, Uganda: A pilot study. Afr J Reprod Health. 2015 Sep 1 [cited 2024 Sep 12]; 19(3): 144–150. Reference Source
51. Grépin KA, Habyarimana J, Jack W: Cash on delivery: Results of a randomized experiment to promote maternal health care in Kenya. J Health Econ. 2019 May 1; 65: 15–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
52. Toolan M, Barnard K, Lynch M, et al.: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of antenatal interventions to improve maternal and neonatal health in Nepal. AJOG Glob Rep. 2022 Feb 1; 2(1): 100019. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
53. Bhatt H, Tiwari S, Ensor T, et al.: Contribution of Nepal’s Free Delivery Care Policies in Improving Utilisation of Maternal Health Services. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Jul 1 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 7(7): 645–655. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
54. Flueckiger RM, Colaco R, Adhikari B, et al.: A community led innovation benefiting women and children: Health facilities and credit cooperative work together to promote maternal health care in Sahare VDC, Nepal. Health Care Women Int. 2018 Sep 2 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 39(9): 1008–1019. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Reference Source
55. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions|Cochrane Training.[cited 2024 Sep 9]. Reference Source
56. New country classifications by income level: 2019-2020 [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 11]. Reference Source
57. Middle Income Countries Overview: Development news, research, data|World Bank [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 11]. Reference Source
58. Jackson MA, Brown AL, Baker AL, et al.: The Incentives to Quit tobacco in Pregnancy (IQuiP) protocol: piloting a financial incentive-based smoking treatment for women attending substance use in pregnancy antenatal services. BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 1 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 9(11): e032330. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Reference Source
59. Higgins ST, Bernstein IM, Washio Y, et al.: Effects of Smoking Cessation with Voucher-Based Contingency Management on Birth Outcomes. Addiction (Abingdon, England). 2010 Nov [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 105(11): 2023–2030. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
60. Lillington L, Royce J, Novak D, et al.: Evaluation of a smoking cessation program for pregnant minority women. Cancer Pract. 1995; 3(3): 157–163. PubMed Abstract
61. Kurti AN, Tang K, Bolivar HA, et al.: Smartphone-based financial incentives to promote smoking cessation during pregnancy: A pilot study. Prev Med (Baltim). 2020 Nov 1 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 140: 106201. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
62. Boyd K, Boyd KA, Briggs AH, et al.: Are financial incentives cost-effective for smoking cessation amongst pregnant women? Kathleen Boyd. Eur J Public Health. 2014 Oct 1 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 24(suppl_2). Publisher Full Text
63. McGregor S, Henderson KJ, Kaldor JM: How Are Health Research Priorities Set in Low and Middle Income Countries? A Systematic Review of Published Reports. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 2 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 9(10): e108787. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
64. Solnes Miltenburg A, van Pelt S , de Bruin W , Shields-Zeeman L: Mobilizing community action to improve maternal health in a rural district in Tanzania: lessons learned from two years of community group activities. Glob Health Action. 2019 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 12(1): 1621590. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
65. Shrivastava S, Sivakami M: Evidence of “obstetric violence” in India: an integrative review. J Biosoc Sci. 2020 Jul 1 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 52(4): 610–628. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
66. Perera D, Lund R, Swahnberg K, et al.: “When helpers hurt”: women’s and midwives’ stories of obstetric violence in state health institutions, Colombo district, Sri Lanka. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Jun 7 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 18(1): 211. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
67. The prevention and elimination of disrespect and abuse during facility-based childbirth.[cited 2024 Sep 11]. Reference Source
68. Saprii L, Richards E, Kokho P, et al.: Community health workers in rural India: Analysing the opportunities and challenges Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) face in realising their multiple roles. Hum Resour Health. 2015 Dec 9 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 13(1): 1–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
69. Reddy B, Thomas S, Karachiwala B, et al.: A scoping review of the impact of organisational factors on providers and related interventions in LMICs: Implications for respectful maternity care. PLOS Glob. Public Health [Internet]. 2022 Oct 1 [cited 2025 Mar 10];2(10): e0001134. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
70. Janaki S, Prabakar S: Examining socioeconomic factors influencing maternal health in pregnancy. J Hum Behav Soc Environ [Internet]. 2024 Feb 8 [cited 2025 Mar 10]; 35(4): 469–487. Publisher Full Text
71. Braveman PA, Heck K, Egerter S, et al.: The role of socioeconomic factors in Black-White disparities in preterm birth. Am J Public Health [Internet]. 2015 Apr 1 [cited 2025 Mar 10];105(4): 694–702. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
72. Kumari U, Sharma RK, Keshari JR, et al.: Environmental Exposure: Effect on Maternal Morbidity and Mortality and Neonatal Health. Cureus [Internet]. 2023 May 4 [cited 2025 Mar 10];15(5). Publisher Full Text Reference Source
73. Bloom SS, Wypij D, Das Gupta M: Dimensions of women’s autonomy and the influence on maternal health care utilization in a North Indian city. Demography [Internet]. 2001 Feb 1 [cited 2025 Mar 10];38(1): 67–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
74. Shah R, Rehfuess EA, Paudel D, et al.: Barriers and facilitators to institutional delivery in rural areas of Chitwan district, Nepal: A qualitative study. Reprod Health [Internet]. 2018 Jun 20 [cited 2025 Mar 10];15(1): 1–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
75. Gething PW, Johnson FA, Frempong-Ainguah F, et al.: Geographical access to care at birth in Ghana: A barrier to safe motherhood. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2012 Nov 16 [cited 2025 Mar 10];12(1): 1–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
76. Choulagai B, Onta S, Subedi N, et al.: Barriers to using skilled birth attendants’ services in mid- and far-western Nepal: A cross-sectional study. BMC Int Health Hum Rights [Internet]. 2013 Dec 23 [cited 2025 Mar 10];13(1): 1–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
77. Rao M, Holla R: PRISMA Flowchart of SR incentive. figshare. Figure. 2024. Publisher Full Text
78. Rao M, Holla R: PRISMA checklist of SR Incentive. Dataset. figshare. 2024. Publisher Full Text
79. Rao M, Holla R: PRISMA checklist of SR Incentive. Dataset. figshare. 2024. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 09 Dec 2024

Author details Author details

Rosemol Johnson
Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Nisha A Khader
Roles: Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Mithun Rao
Roles: Software, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Bhaskaran Unnikrishnan
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Anju Sinha
Roles: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Darshan BB
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Ravishankar N
Roles: Methodology, Software, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

One of the authors (AS) has non-financial competing interests as she is an employee of the funding agency. She has read the manuscript and provided critical substantive comments. The other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Grant information

This work was supported by the Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, Government of India. File No. 5/7/1725/CH/Adhoc-RBMCH.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 29 May 2025, 13:1512

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159261.2

version 1

Published: 09 Dec 2024, 13:1512

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159261.1

© 2025 Holla R et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Holla R, Johnson R, Khader NA et al. Incentives for pregnant mothers during antenatal care for better maternal and neonatal health outcomes in low and middle income countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2025, 13:1512 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159261.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 09 Dec 2024

Views

Reviewer Report 24 Feb 2025

Nicola McMeekin, Glasgow Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174960.r361421

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper. It reports the findings of a systematic review that searched for papers evaluating the impact on maternal and neonatal outcomes of offering incentives to pregnant women in low and middle income countries.
Overall this paper is very well written and interesting to read. My suggestions for edits are mainly for overall clarification not specific issues, to set the scene for the reader before you go into your well written sections. This is often the case when you know you subject well, but a few small clarifications and scene setting sentences would improve what is interesting and relevant research.

Minor
Introduction
Please could you move the detail of the SDG (MMR less than 70 per 100000 live deaths) to earlier on in the first paragraph in the Introduction? At the moment the reader has to wait till the sentence about Liberia to find out what the detail is.
I think this section would benefit too from a sentence or two on the overall issue with LMICs – you start off with describing South Africa and Asia in the second sentence. Could you add a bit to the first sentence along the lines of ‘…..countries and regions, particularly between higher and LMICs’ – or something similar.
I was also confused by the last sentence in the first paragraph: ‘The model also forecasts that 13 countries would achieve the target between 2030 to 2050; while the remaining 13 countries are likely to succeed after 2050’. In the previous sentence you stated that the study looks at data from 31 countries, the 2 comments about 13 countries would suggest that the study you cite looks at 26 countries. Please could you clarify why the 2 amounts in your last sentence don’t add up to 31?

In the Introduction you focus on maternal and neonatal mortality rates. It is not immediately obvious to me why you have chosen these outcomes to discuss. Please consider adding a short explanation of why you chose these specific outcomes, you might say that they are key outcomes that are linked to other important maternal/neonatal outcomes, or that they are proxy’s for other outcomes? For example in the second paragraph of the ‘Rationale: Why is this important?’ section in the Introduction in the first sentence you introduce some relevant outcomes such as pregnancy and childbirth-related complications, maybe introduce some of these in the first paragraph of the Introduction?

The ‘What is already known’ section could benefit from a short introduction paragraph. At the moment it starts with smoking cessation incentives, it would be good to set the scene with saying something along the lines of how incentives could benefit this area (in terms of reducing smoking and improving engagement with antenatal care for example) and improve maternal and child outcomes. This would help orientate the reader to what to expect in this section before it starts with more specific details. The last paragraph closes this section really nicely, starting with something similar as suggested would benefit it.

In the research questions section please could you write out in full what ‘IFA’ and ‘Inj TT’ refer to in 1b?

Methods

The Methods section is clear and very well written, it included everything I would expect to see in a systematic review. I was unable to see the search strategy in the repository – only PRISMA checklists and flowchart. Please could you check that the strategy is included – I just many not be able to see it - this is why I answered 'partly' to the question - Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

In Outcomes – please could you clarify your definition of preterm delivery – i.e. born alive before 37 weeks, also for perinatal and neonatal deaths, and maternal deaths.
Discussion

Fourth paragraph in the Discussion section – the last 2 sentences are very similar – could this be a duplication?

Would it be possible to highlight that previously there were a small number of studies and with small sample sizes – and this study has not found a large number of studies – but most studies were RCTs – so assumably suitably powered? It would be good to have that additional information.

I really liked your last paragraph in the Discussion section about poverty not being the sole barrier for pregnant women to access healthcare services. Would it be possible to add another sentence or two to this paragraph if there is more evidence available similar to the violence you discussed in the second sentence?

In the ‘Implications for research’ section please could you consider moving the 4^th and 5^th paragraphs (evidence limited to LMIC and limited study resources for searching for non-English records) to the ‘Strengths and limitations of the study’ section – they read more like strengths and limitations rather than implications.

Typos/grammar
I only found a few typos/grammatical errors and mainly in the Results section:
In ‘Neonatal outcomes – 2. Perinat and neonatal deaths’ – ‘the data has not been adequate to conduct any analysis’ would read better as ‘the data was not adequate to conduct any analysis’
You also mix present and past tense in the Discussion:
Second paragraph – ‘there is no separate data on the same’ should read ‘there was no separate data on the same’, and ‘there is no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives…’ should read ‘there was no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives……’

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes
If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Health economics

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 19 Mar 2025

Ramesh Holla, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

19 Mar 2025

Author Response

Point to point response to the reviewer’s comments:

1.   Comment: Please could you move the detail of the SDG (MMR less than 70 per 100,000 live births) to earlier ... Continue reading Point to point response to the reviewer’s comments:

1.   Comment: Please could you move the detail of the SDG (MMR less than 70 per 100,000 live births) to earlier on in the first paragraph in the Introduction? At the moment, the reader has to wait till the sentence about Liberia to find out what the detail is.

Author’s response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have moved the SDG detail (MMR less than 70 per 100,000 live births) to the first paragraph of the Introduction for better clarity and immediate context.
We rephrased the original paragraph to "The Million Death Study (2015) found that neonatal mortality in India was particularly high in rural areas, largely attributed to premature births and low birth weights (6). In view of the current trends, it will be difficult for India to achieve the NMR targets for SDG-2030 and National Health Policy 2025 (7). A gap analysis indicated that Liberia would take an additional 12.5 years beyond 2030 to meet the SDG target for MMR, with a similar 12.9-year delay projected for NMR (8)."to maintain readability.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, where the SDG goal is now introduced earlier in the first paragraph of the Introduction.
The rephrased sentences can be found in the last two paragraphs of introduction section

2.   Comment: I think this section would benefit too from a sentence or two on the overall issue with LMICs – you start off with describing South Africa and Asia in the second sentence. Could you add a bit to the first sentence along the lines of ‘.....countries and regions, particularly between higher and LMICs’ – or something similar.

Author’s response: Note your suggestion. We have added a phrase to the first sentence of the Introduction to emphasize disparities between higher-income countries (HICs) and low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs).

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, where the first sentence of the introduction section now highlights disparities between HICs and LMICs.

3.   Comment: I was also confused by the last sentence in the first paragraph: ‘The model also forecasts that 13 countries would achieve the target between 2030 to 2050; while the remaining 13 countries are likely to succeed after 2050’. In the previous sentence you stated that the study looks at data from 31 countries, the 2 comments about 13 countries would suggest that the study you cite looks at 26 countries. Please could you clarify why the 2 amounts in your last sentence don’t add up to 31?

Author’s response: We have added a clarification that mortality projections were unavailable for three countries due to data quality limitations to ensure the total sums up to 31.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in introduction section, last line of the fourth paragraph

4.   Comment: In the Introduction you focus on maternal and neonatal mortality rates. It is not immediately obvious to me why you have chosen these outcomes to discuss. Please consider adding a short explanation of why you chose these specific outcomes, you might say that they are key outcomes that are linked to other important maternal/neonatal outcomes, or that they are proxies for other outcomes

Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have added an explanation stating that maternal and neonatal mortality rates are key indicators of healthcare system effectiveness, reflecting both direct health outcomes and broader factors such as healthcare accessibility, service quality, and social health determinants. These statistics also serve as indicators of pregnancy-related complications, perinatal health risks, and the efficacy of healthcare interventions

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in second paragraph of the Introduction, where this explanation has been added. New references 2 and 3 has been added.

5.   Comment: For example, in the second paragraph of the ‘Rationale: Why is this important?’ section in the Introduction, in the first sentence, you introduce some relevant outcomes such as pregnancy and childbirth-related complications. Maybe introduce some of these in the first paragraph of the Introduction?.

Author’s response: Added a sentence introducing pregnancy-related complications, including miscarriage, preterm labour, stillbirth, and maternal or neonatal morbidity and mortality, emphasizing that these complications can occur at any stage of pregnancy, during labour, or postpartum

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, and a new reference (4) has been added

6.   Comment: The ‘What is already known’ section could benefit from a short introduction paragraph. At the moment, it starts with smoking cessation incentives. It would be good to set the scene with something along the lines of how incentives could benefit this area (in terms of reducing smoking and improving engagement with antenatal care, for example) and improve maternal and child outcomes. This would help orient the reader to what to expect in this section before it starts with more specific details.

Author’s response: Added an introductory paragraph explaining that incentive-based interventions, including conditional cash transfers (CCTs) and vouchers, have been implemented globally with some success in maternal and neonatal health programs. These initiatives aim to overcome healthcare access barriers, improve maternal health practices, and enhance birth outcomes
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the first paragraph under the "What is already known" section, and new references (11–21) have been added

7.   Comment: In the research questions section please could you write out in full what ‘IFA’ and ‘Inj TT’ refer to in 1b.

Author’s response: Expanded the abbreviations to Iron and Folic Acid (IFA) tablets intake and Tetanus Toxoid injection (Inj TT) for clarity

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in 1b in “Our Research Questions” Section

8.   Comment: I was unable to see the search strategy in the repository – only PRISMA checklists and flowchart.

Author’s response: The search strategy was shared via Figshare and is available under the Data Availability section

Action taken in the manuscript: No changes were made

9.   Comment: In Outcomes – please could you clarify your definition of preterm delivery – i.e. born alive before 37 weeks, also for perinatal and neonatal deaths, and maternal deaths

Author’s response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have incorporated the clear definitions for preterm delivery, low birthweight, perinatal deaths, and neonatal deaths

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in first few lines under the Outcomes section, with new references (36–39) added

10.   Comment: Fourth paragraph in the Discussion section – the last 2 sentences are very similar – could this be a duplication.

Author’s response: Identified and removed duplicate sentences in the fourth paragraph of the Discussion section

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Discussion” section, where the duplicated content has been deleted

11.   Comment: Would it be possible to highlight that previously there were a small number of studies and with small sample sizes – and this study has not found a large number of studies – but most studies were RCTs – so assumably suitably powered? It would be good to have that additional information.

Author’s response: Added a clarification that previous reviews had a limited number of studies with small sample sizes, reducing their reliability. Our review also did not find a significantly larger number of studies; however, most were RCTs, which are generally well-powered to detect meaningful effects, strengthening the evidence base

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in last paragraph of the “Discussion” section

12.   Comment: Would it be possible to add another sentence or two to this paragraph if there is more evidence available similar to the violence you discussed in the second sentence?

Author’s response: Expanded the paragraph to include additional barriers to maternal healthcare access, such as challenges faced by healthcare workers, patriarchal norms limiting women’s autonomy, cultural preferences for home births, and poor healthcare infrastructure
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in last paragraph under the "Implication of Research" section, with new references (71–79) added

13.   Comment: In the ‘Implications for research’ section, please could you consider moving the 4th and 5th paragraphs (evidence limited to LMICs and limited study resources for searching for non-English records) to the ‘Strengths and limitations of the study’ section – they read more like strengths and limitations rather than implications.

Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have moved the 4th and 5th paragraphs from the "Implications for Research" section to the "Strengths and Limitations of the Study" section for better alignment
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the "Strengths and Limitations" section

14.   Comment: In ‘Neonatal outcomes – 2. Perinatal and neonatal deaths’ – ‘the data has not been adequate to conduct any analysis’ would read better as ‘the data was not adequate to conduct any analysis’. You also mix present and past tense in the Discussion: Second paragraph – ‘there is no separate data on the same’ should read ‘there was no separate data on the same’, and ‘there is no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives...’ should read ‘there was no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives......’.

Author’s response: Revised the text to ensure consistent past tense usage: "No separate data was available, and there was no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives on maternal and neonatal outcomes.".

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in second paragraph of the “Discussion” section.
Point to point response to the reviewer’s comments:

1.   Comment: Please could you move the detail of the SDG (MMR less than 70 per 100,000 live births) to earlier on in the first paragraph in the Introduction? At the moment, the reader has to wait till the sentence about Liberia to find out what the detail is.

Author’s response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have moved the SDG detail (MMR less than 70 per 100,000 live births) to the first paragraph of the Introduction for better clarity and immediate context.
We rephrased the original paragraph to "The Million Death Study (2015) found that neonatal mortality in India was particularly high in rural areas, largely attributed to premature births and low birth weights (6). In view of the current trends, it will be difficult for India to achieve the NMR targets for SDG-2030 and National Health Policy 2025 (7). A gap analysis indicated that Liberia would take an additional 12.5 years beyond 2030 to meet the SDG target for MMR, with a similar 12.9-year delay projected for NMR (8)."to maintain readability.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, where the SDG goal is now introduced earlier in the first paragraph of the Introduction.
The rephrased sentences can be found in the last two paragraphs of introduction section

2.   Comment: I think this section would benefit too from a sentence or two on the overall issue with LMICs – you start off with describing South Africa and Asia in the second sentence. Could you add a bit to the first sentence along the lines of ‘.....countries and regions, particularly between higher and LMICs’ – or something similar.

Author’s response: Note your suggestion. We have added a phrase to the first sentence of the Introduction to emphasize disparities between higher-income countries (HICs) and low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs).

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, where the first sentence of the introduction section now highlights disparities between HICs and LMICs.

3.   Comment: I was also confused by the last sentence in the first paragraph: ‘The model also forecasts that 13 countries would achieve the target between 2030 to 2050; while the remaining 13 countries are likely to succeed after 2050’. In the previous sentence you stated that the study looks at data from 31 countries, the 2 comments about 13 countries would suggest that the study you cite looks at 26 countries. Please could you clarify why the 2 amounts in your last sentence don’t add up to 31?

Author’s response: We have added a clarification that mortality projections were unavailable for three countries due to data quality limitations to ensure the total sums up to 31.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in introduction section, last line of the fourth paragraph

4.   Comment: In the Introduction you focus on maternal and neonatal mortality rates. It is not immediately obvious to me why you have chosen these outcomes to discuss. Please consider adding a short explanation of why you chose these specific outcomes, you might say that they are key outcomes that are linked to other important maternal/neonatal outcomes, or that they are proxies for other outcomes

Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have added an explanation stating that maternal and neonatal mortality rates are key indicators of healthcare system effectiveness, reflecting both direct health outcomes and broader factors such as healthcare accessibility, service quality, and social health determinants. These statistics also serve as indicators of pregnancy-related complications, perinatal health risks, and the efficacy of healthcare interventions

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in second paragraph of the Introduction, where this explanation has been added. New references 2 and 3 has been added.

5.   Comment: For example, in the second paragraph of the ‘Rationale: Why is this important?’ section in the Introduction, in the first sentence, you introduce some relevant outcomes such as pregnancy and childbirth-related complications. Maybe introduce some of these in the first paragraph of the Introduction?.

Author’s response: Added a sentence introducing pregnancy-related complications, including miscarriage, preterm labour, stillbirth, and maternal or neonatal morbidity and mortality, emphasizing that these complications can occur at any stage of pregnancy, during labour, or postpartum

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, and a new reference (4) has been added

6.   Comment: The ‘What is already known’ section could benefit from a short introduction paragraph. At the moment, it starts with smoking cessation incentives. It would be good to set the scene with something along the lines of how incentives could benefit this area (in terms of reducing smoking and improving engagement with antenatal care, for example) and improve maternal and child outcomes. This would help orient the reader to what to expect in this section before it starts with more specific details.

Author’s response: Added an introductory paragraph explaining that incentive-based interventions, including conditional cash transfers (CCTs) and vouchers, have been implemented globally with some success in maternal and neonatal health programs. These initiatives aim to overcome healthcare access barriers, improve maternal health practices, and enhance birth outcomes
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the first paragraph under the "What is already known" section, and new references (11–21) have been added

7.   Comment: In the research questions section please could you write out in full what ‘IFA’ and ‘Inj TT’ refer to in 1b.

Author’s response: Expanded the abbreviations to Iron and Folic Acid (IFA) tablets intake and Tetanus Toxoid injection (Inj TT) for clarity

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in 1b in “Our Research Questions” Section

8.   Comment: I was unable to see the search strategy in the repository – only PRISMA checklists and flowchart.

Author’s response: The search strategy was shared via Figshare and is available under the Data Availability section

Action taken in the manuscript: No changes were made

9.   Comment: In Outcomes – please could you clarify your definition of preterm delivery – i.e. born alive before 37 weeks, also for perinatal and neonatal deaths, and maternal deaths

Author’s response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have incorporated the clear definitions for preterm delivery, low birthweight, perinatal deaths, and neonatal deaths

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in first few lines under the Outcomes section, with new references (36–39) added

10.   Comment: Fourth paragraph in the Discussion section – the last 2 sentences are very similar – could this be a duplication.

Author’s response: Identified and removed duplicate sentences in the fourth paragraph of the Discussion section

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Discussion” section, where the duplicated content has been deleted

11.   Comment: Would it be possible to highlight that previously there were a small number of studies and with small sample sizes – and this study has not found a large number of studies – but most studies were RCTs – so assumably suitably powered? It would be good to have that additional information.

Author’s response: Added a clarification that previous reviews had a limited number of studies with small sample sizes, reducing their reliability. Our review also did not find a significantly larger number of studies; however, most were RCTs, which are generally well-powered to detect meaningful effects, strengthening the evidence base

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in last paragraph of the “Discussion” section

12.   Comment: Would it be possible to add another sentence or two to this paragraph if there is more evidence available similar to the violence you discussed in the second sentence?

Author’s response: Expanded the paragraph to include additional barriers to maternal healthcare access, such as challenges faced by healthcare workers, patriarchal norms limiting women’s autonomy, cultural preferences for home births, and poor healthcare infrastructure
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in last paragraph under the "Implication of Research" section, with new references (71–79) added

13.   Comment: In the ‘Implications for research’ section, please could you consider moving the 4th and 5th paragraphs (evidence limited to LMICs and limited study resources for searching for non-English records) to the ‘Strengths and limitations of the study’ section – they read more like strengths and limitations rather than implications.

Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have moved the 4th and 5th paragraphs from the "Implications for Research" section to the "Strengths and Limitations of the Study" section for better alignment
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the "Strengths and Limitations" section

14.   Comment: In ‘Neonatal outcomes – 2. Perinatal and neonatal deaths’ – ‘the data has not been adequate to conduct any analysis’ would read better as ‘the data was not adequate to conduct any analysis’. You also mix present and past tense in the Discussion: Second paragraph – ‘there is no separate data on the same’ should read ‘there was no separate data on the same’, and ‘there is no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives...’ should read ‘there was no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives......’.

Author’s response: Revised the text to ensure consistent past tense usage: "No separate data was available, and there was no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives on maternal and neonatal outcomes.".

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in second paragraph of the “Discussion” section.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 19 Mar 2025

Ramesh Holla, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

19 Mar 2025

Author Response

Point to point response to the reviewer’s comments:

1.   Comment: Please could you move the detail of the SDG (MMR less than 70 per 100,000 live births) to earlier ... Continue reading Point to point response to the reviewer’s comments:

1.   Comment: Please could you move the detail of the SDG (MMR less than 70 per 100,000 live births) to earlier on in the first paragraph in the Introduction? At the moment, the reader has to wait till the sentence about Liberia to find out what the detail is.

Author’s response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have moved the SDG detail (MMR less than 70 per 100,000 live births) to the first paragraph of the Introduction for better clarity and immediate context.
We rephrased the original paragraph to "The Million Death Study (2015) found that neonatal mortality in India was particularly high in rural areas, largely attributed to premature births and low birth weights (6). In view of the current trends, it will be difficult for India to achieve the NMR targets for SDG-2030 and National Health Policy 2025 (7). A gap analysis indicated that Liberia would take an additional 12.5 years beyond 2030 to meet the SDG target for MMR, with a similar 12.9-year delay projected for NMR (8)."to maintain readability.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, where the SDG goal is now introduced earlier in the first paragraph of the Introduction.
The rephrased sentences can be found in the last two paragraphs of introduction section

2.   Comment: I think this section would benefit too from a sentence or two on the overall issue with LMICs – you start off with describing South Africa and Asia in the second sentence. Could you add a bit to the first sentence along the lines of ‘.....countries and regions, particularly between higher and LMICs’ – or something similar.

Author’s response: Note your suggestion. We have added a phrase to the first sentence of the Introduction to emphasize disparities between higher-income countries (HICs) and low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs).

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, where the first sentence of the introduction section now highlights disparities between HICs and LMICs.

3.   Comment: I was also confused by the last sentence in the first paragraph: ‘The model also forecasts that 13 countries would achieve the target between 2030 to 2050; while the remaining 13 countries are likely to succeed after 2050’. In the previous sentence you stated that the study looks at data from 31 countries, the 2 comments about 13 countries would suggest that the study you cite looks at 26 countries. Please could you clarify why the 2 amounts in your last sentence don’t add up to 31?

Author’s response: We have added a clarification that mortality projections were unavailable for three countries due to data quality limitations to ensure the total sums up to 31.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in introduction section, last line of the fourth paragraph

4.   Comment: In the Introduction you focus on maternal and neonatal mortality rates. It is not immediately obvious to me why you have chosen these outcomes to discuss. Please consider adding a short explanation of why you chose these specific outcomes, you might say that they are key outcomes that are linked to other important maternal/neonatal outcomes, or that they are proxies for other outcomes

Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have added an explanation stating that maternal and neonatal mortality rates are key indicators of healthcare system effectiveness, reflecting both direct health outcomes and broader factors such as healthcare accessibility, service quality, and social health determinants. These statistics also serve as indicators of pregnancy-related complications, perinatal health risks, and the efficacy of healthcare interventions

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in second paragraph of the Introduction, where this explanation has been added. New references 2 and 3 has been added.

5.   Comment: For example, in the second paragraph of the ‘Rationale: Why is this important?’ section in the Introduction, in the first sentence, you introduce some relevant outcomes such as pregnancy and childbirth-related complications. Maybe introduce some of these in the first paragraph of the Introduction?.

Author’s response: Added a sentence introducing pregnancy-related complications, including miscarriage, preterm labour, stillbirth, and maternal or neonatal morbidity and mortality, emphasizing that these complications can occur at any stage of pregnancy, during labour, or postpartum

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, and a new reference (4) has been added

6.   Comment: The ‘What is already known’ section could benefit from a short introduction paragraph. At the moment, it starts with smoking cessation incentives. It would be good to set the scene with something along the lines of how incentives could benefit this area (in terms of reducing smoking and improving engagement with antenatal care, for example) and improve maternal and child outcomes. This would help orient the reader to what to expect in this section before it starts with more specific details.

Author’s response: Added an introductory paragraph explaining that incentive-based interventions, including conditional cash transfers (CCTs) and vouchers, have been implemented globally with some success in maternal and neonatal health programs. These initiatives aim to overcome healthcare access barriers, improve maternal health practices, and enhance birth outcomes
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the first paragraph under the "What is already known" section, and new references (11–21) have been added

7.   Comment: In the research questions section please could you write out in full what ‘IFA’ and ‘Inj TT’ refer to in 1b.

Author’s response: Expanded the abbreviations to Iron and Folic Acid (IFA) tablets intake and Tetanus Toxoid injection (Inj TT) for clarity

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in 1b in “Our Research Questions” Section

8.   Comment: I was unable to see the search strategy in the repository – only PRISMA checklists and flowchart.

Author’s response: The search strategy was shared via Figshare and is available under the Data Availability section

Action taken in the manuscript: No changes were made

9.   Comment: In Outcomes – please could you clarify your definition of preterm delivery – i.e. born alive before 37 weeks, also for perinatal and neonatal deaths, and maternal deaths

Author’s response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have incorporated the clear definitions for preterm delivery, low birthweight, perinatal deaths, and neonatal deaths

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in first few lines under the Outcomes section, with new references (36–39) added

10.   Comment: Fourth paragraph in the Discussion section – the last 2 sentences are very similar – could this be a duplication.

Author’s response: Identified and removed duplicate sentences in the fourth paragraph of the Discussion section

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Discussion” section, where the duplicated content has been deleted

11.   Comment: Would it be possible to highlight that previously there were a small number of studies and with small sample sizes – and this study has not found a large number of studies – but most studies were RCTs – so assumably suitably powered? It would be good to have that additional information.

Author’s response: Added a clarification that previous reviews had a limited number of studies with small sample sizes, reducing their reliability. Our review also did not find a significantly larger number of studies; however, most were RCTs, which are generally well-powered to detect meaningful effects, strengthening the evidence base

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in last paragraph of the “Discussion” section

12.   Comment: Would it be possible to add another sentence or two to this paragraph if there is more evidence available similar to the violence you discussed in the second sentence?

Author’s response: Expanded the paragraph to include additional barriers to maternal healthcare access, such as challenges faced by healthcare workers, patriarchal norms limiting women’s autonomy, cultural preferences for home births, and poor healthcare infrastructure
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in last paragraph under the "Implication of Research" section, with new references (71–79) added

13.   Comment: In the ‘Implications for research’ section, please could you consider moving the 4th and 5th paragraphs (evidence limited to LMICs and limited study resources for searching for non-English records) to the ‘Strengths and limitations of the study’ section – they read more like strengths and limitations rather than implications.

Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have moved the 4th and 5th paragraphs from the "Implications for Research" section to the "Strengths and Limitations of the Study" section for better alignment
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the "Strengths and Limitations" section

14.   Comment: In ‘Neonatal outcomes – 2. Perinatal and neonatal deaths’ – ‘the data has not been adequate to conduct any analysis’ would read better as ‘the data was not adequate to conduct any analysis’. You also mix present and past tense in the Discussion: Second paragraph – ‘there is no separate data on the same’ should read ‘there was no separate data on the same’, and ‘there is no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives...’ should read ‘there was no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives......’.

Author’s response: Revised the text to ensure consistent past tense usage: "No separate data was available, and there was no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives on maternal and neonatal outcomes.".

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in second paragraph of the “Discussion” section.
Point to point response to the reviewer’s comments:

1.   Comment: Please could you move the detail of the SDG (MMR less than 70 per 100,000 live births) to earlier on in the first paragraph in the Introduction? At the moment, the reader has to wait till the sentence about Liberia to find out what the detail is.

Author’s response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have moved the SDG detail (MMR less than 70 per 100,000 live births) to the first paragraph of the Introduction for better clarity and immediate context.
We rephrased the original paragraph to "The Million Death Study (2015) found that neonatal mortality in India was particularly high in rural areas, largely attributed to premature births and low birth weights (6). In view of the current trends, it will be difficult for India to achieve the NMR targets for SDG-2030 and National Health Policy 2025 (7). A gap analysis indicated that Liberia would take an additional 12.5 years beyond 2030 to meet the SDG target for MMR, with a similar 12.9-year delay projected for NMR (8)."to maintain readability.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, where the SDG goal is now introduced earlier in the first paragraph of the Introduction.
The rephrased sentences can be found in the last two paragraphs of introduction section

2.   Comment: I think this section would benefit too from a sentence or two on the overall issue with LMICs – you start off with describing South Africa and Asia in the second sentence. Could you add a bit to the first sentence along the lines of ‘.....countries and regions, particularly between higher and LMICs’ – or something similar.

Author’s response: Note your suggestion. We have added a phrase to the first sentence of the Introduction to emphasize disparities between higher-income countries (HICs) and low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs).

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, where the first sentence of the introduction section now highlights disparities between HICs and LMICs.

3.   Comment: I was also confused by the last sentence in the first paragraph: ‘The model also forecasts that 13 countries would achieve the target between 2030 to 2050; while the remaining 13 countries are likely to succeed after 2050’. In the previous sentence you stated that the study looks at data from 31 countries, the 2 comments about 13 countries would suggest that the study you cite looks at 26 countries. Please could you clarify why the 2 amounts in your last sentence don’t add up to 31?

Author’s response: We have added a clarification that mortality projections were unavailable for three countries due to data quality limitations to ensure the total sums up to 31.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in introduction section, last line of the fourth paragraph

4.   Comment: In the Introduction you focus on maternal and neonatal mortality rates. It is not immediately obvious to me why you have chosen these outcomes to discuss. Please consider adding a short explanation of why you chose these specific outcomes, you might say that they are key outcomes that are linked to other important maternal/neonatal outcomes, or that they are proxies for other outcomes

Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have added an explanation stating that maternal and neonatal mortality rates are key indicators of healthcare system effectiveness, reflecting both direct health outcomes and broader factors such as healthcare accessibility, service quality, and social health determinants. These statistics also serve as indicators of pregnancy-related complications, perinatal health risks, and the efficacy of healthcare interventions

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in second paragraph of the Introduction, where this explanation has been added. New references 2 and 3 has been added.

5.   Comment: For example, in the second paragraph of the ‘Rationale: Why is this important?’ section in the Introduction, in the first sentence, you introduce some relevant outcomes such as pregnancy and childbirth-related complications. Maybe introduce some of these in the first paragraph of the Introduction?.

Author’s response: Added a sentence introducing pregnancy-related complications, including miscarriage, preterm labour, stillbirth, and maternal or neonatal morbidity and mortality, emphasizing that these complications can occur at any stage of pregnancy, during labour, or postpartum

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, and a new reference (4) has been added

6.   Comment: The ‘What is already known’ section could benefit from a short introduction paragraph. At the moment, it starts with smoking cessation incentives. It would be good to set the scene with something along the lines of how incentives could benefit this area (in terms of reducing smoking and improving engagement with antenatal care, for example) and improve maternal and child outcomes. This would help orient the reader to what to expect in this section before it starts with more specific details.

Author’s response: Added an introductory paragraph explaining that incentive-based interventions, including conditional cash transfers (CCTs) and vouchers, have been implemented globally with some success in maternal and neonatal health programs. These initiatives aim to overcome healthcare access barriers, improve maternal health practices, and enhance birth outcomes
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the first paragraph under the "What is already known" section, and new references (11–21) have been added

7.   Comment: In the research questions section please could you write out in full what ‘IFA’ and ‘Inj TT’ refer to in 1b.

Author’s response: Expanded the abbreviations to Iron and Folic Acid (IFA) tablets intake and Tetanus Toxoid injection (Inj TT) for clarity

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in 1b in “Our Research Questions” Section

8.   Comment: I was unable to see the search strategy in the repository – only PRISMA checklists and flowchart.

Author’s response: The search strategy was shared via Figshare and is available under the Data Availability section

Action taken in the manuscript: No changes were made

9.   Comment: In Outcomes – please could you clarify your definition of preterm delivery – i.e. born alive before 37 weeks, also for perinatal and neonatal deaths, and maternal deaths

Author’s response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have incorporated the clear definitions for preterm delivery, low birthweight, perinatal deaths, and neonatal deaths

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in first few lines under the Outcomes section, with new references (36–39) added

10.   Comment: Fourth paragraph in the Discussion section – the last 2 sentences are very similar – could this be a duplication.

Author’s response: Identified and removed duplicate sentences in the fourth paragraph of the Discussion section

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Discussion” section, where the duplicated content has been deleted

11.   Comment: Would it be possible to highlight that previously there were a small number of studies and with small sample sizes – and this study has not found a large number of studies – but most studies were RCTs – so assumably suitably powered? It would be good to have that additional information.

Author’s response: Added a clarification that previous reviews had a limited number of studies with small sample sizes, reducing their reliability. Our review also did not find a significantly larger number of studies; however, most were RCTs, which are generally well-powered to detect meaningful effects, strengthening the evidence base

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in last paragraph of the “Discussion” section

12.   Comment: Would it be possible to add another sentence or two to this paragraph if there is more evidence available similar to the violence you discussed in the second sentence?

Author’s response: Expanded the paragraph to include additional barriers to maternal healthcare access, such as challenges faced by healthcare workers, patriarchal norms limiting women’s autonomy, cultural preferences for home births, and poor healthcare infrastructure
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in last paragraph under the "Implication of Research" section, with new references (71–79) added

13.   Comment: In the ‘Implications for research’ section, please could you consider moving the 4th and 5th paragraphs (evidence limited to LMICs and limited study resources for searching for non-English records) to the ‘Strengths and limitations of the study’ section – they read more like strengths and limitations rather than implications.

Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have moved the 4th and 5th paragraphs from the "Implications for Research" section to the "Strengths and Limitations of the Study" section for better alignment
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the "Strengths and Limitations" section

14.   Comment: In ‘Neonatal outcomes – 2. Perinatal and neonatal deaths’ – ‘the data has not been adequate to conduct any analysis’ would read better as ‘the data was not adequate to conduct any analysis’. You also mix present and past tense in the Discussion: Second paragraph – ‘there is no separate data on the same’ should read ‘there was no separate data on the same’, and ‘there is no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives...’ should read ‘there was no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives......’.

Author’s response: Revised the text to ensure consistent past tense usage: "No separate data was available, and there was no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives on maternal and neonatal outcomes.".

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in second paragraph of the “Discussion” section.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 09 Dec 2024

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1
Version 2 (revision) 29 May 25
Version 1 09 Dec 24	read

Nicola McMeekin, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

26 Views

24 Feb 2025 | for Version 1

Nicola McMeekin, Glasgow Institute of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

26 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes
If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Health economics

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

19 Mar 2025

Ramesh Holla, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

Point to point response to the reviewer’s comments:

1.   Comment: Please could you move the detail of the SDG (MMR less than 70 per 100,000 live births) to earlier on in the first paragraph in the Introduction? At the moment, the reader has to wait till the sentence about Liberia to find out what the detail is.

Author’s response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have moved the SDG detail (MMR less than 70 per 100,000 live births) to the first paragraph of the Introduction for better clarity and immediate context.
We rephrased the original paragraph to "The Million Death Study (2015) found that neonatal mortality in India was particularly high in rural areas, largely attributed to premature births and low birth weights (6). In view of the current trends, it will be difficult for India to achieve the NMR targets for SDG-2030 and National Health Policy 2025 (7). A gap analysis indicated that Liberia would take an additional 12.5 years beyond 2030 to meet the SDG target for MMR, with a similar 12.9-year delay projected for NMR (8)."to maintain readability.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, where the SDG goal is now introduced earlier in the first paragraph of the Introduction.
The rephrased sentences can be found in the last two paragraphs of introduction section

2.   Comment: I think this section would benefit too from a sentence or two on the overall issue with LMICs – you start off with describing South Africa and Asia in the second sentence. Could you add a bit to the first sentence along the lines of ‘.....countries and regions, particularly between higher and LMICs’ – or something similar.

Author’s response: Note your suggestion. We have added a phrase to the first sentence of the Introduction to emphasize disparities between higher-income countries (HICs) and low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs).

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, where the first sentence of the introduction section now highlights disparities between HICs and LMICs.

3.   Comment: I was also confused by the last sentence in the first paragraph: ‘The model also forecasts that 13 countries would achieve the target between 2030 to 2050; while the remaining 13 countries are likely to succeed after 2050’. In the previous sentence you stated that the study looks at data from 31 countries, the 2 comments about 13 countries would suggest that the study you cite looks at 26 countries. Please could you clarify why the 2 amounts in your last sentence don’t add up to 31?

Author’s response: We have added a clarification that mortality projections were unavailable for three countries due to data quality limitations to ensure the total sums up to 31.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in introduction section, last line of the fourth paragraph

4.   Comment: In the Introduction you focus on maternal and neonatal mortality rates. It is not immediately obvious to me why you have chosen these outcomes to discuss. Please consider adding a short explanation of why you chose these specific outcomes, you might say that they are key outcomes that are linked to other important maternal/neonatal outcomes, or that they are proxies for other outcomes

Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have added an explanation stating that maternal and neonatal mortality rates are key indicators of healthcare system effectiveness, reflecting both direct health outcomes and broader factors such as healthcare accessibility, service quality, and social health determinants. These statistics also serve as indicators of pregnancy-related complications, perinatal health risks, and the efficacy of healthcare interventions

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in second paragraph of the Introduction, where this explanation has been added. New references 2 and 3 has been added.

5.   Comment: For example, in the second paragraph of the ‘Rationale: Why is this important?’ section in the Introduction, in the first sentence, you introduce some relevant outcomes such as pregnancy and childbirth-related complications. Maybe introduce some of these in the first paragraph of the Introduction?.

Author’s response: Added a sentence introducing pregnancy-related complications, including miscarriage, preterm labour, stillbirth, and maternal or neonatal morbidity and mortality, emphasizing that these complications can occur at any stage of pregnancy, during labour, or postpartum

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Introduction” section, and a new reference (4) has been added

6.   Comment: The ‘What is already known’ section could benefit from a short introduction paragraph. At the moment, it starts with smoking cessation incentives. It would be good to set the scene with something along the lines of how incentives could benefit this area (in terms of reducing smoking and improving engagement with antenatal care, for example) and improve maternal and child outcomes. This would help orient the reader to what to expect in this section before it starts with more specific details.

Author’s response: Added an introductory paragraph explaining that incentive-based interventions, including conditional cash transfers (CCTs) and vouchers, have been implemented globally with some success in maternal and neonatal health programs. These initiatives aim to overcome healthcare access barriers, improve maternal health practices, and enhance birth outcomes
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the first paragraph under the "What is already known" section, and new references (11–21) have been added

7.   Comment: In the research questions section please could you write out in full what ‘IFA’ and ‘Inj TT’ refer to in 1b.

Author’s response: Expanded the abbreviations to Iron and Folic Acid (IFA) tablets intake and Tetanus Toxoid injection (Inj TT) for clarity

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in 1b in “Our Research Questions” Section

8.   Comment: I was unable to see the search strategy in the repository – only PRISMA checklists and flowchart.

Author’s response: The search strategy was shared via Figshare and is available under the Data Availability section

Action taken in the manuscript: No changes were made

9.   Comment: In Outcomes – please could you clarify your definition of preterm delivery – i.e. born alive before 37 weeks, also for perinatal and neonatal deaths, and maternal deaths

Author’s response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have incorporated the clear definitions for preterm delivery, low birthweight, perinatal deaths, and neonatal deaths

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in first few lines under the Outcomes section, with new references (36–39) added

10.   Comment: Fourth paragraph in the Discussion section – the last 2 sentences are very similar – could this be a duplication.

Author’s response: Identified and removed duplicate sentences in the fourth paragraph of the Discussion section

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the “Discussion” section, where the duplicated content has been deleted

11.   Comment: Would it be possible to highlight that previously there were a small number of studies and with small sample sizes – and this study has not found a large number of studies – but most studies were RCTs – so assumably suitably powered? It would be good to have that additional information.

Author’s response: Added a clarification that previous reviews had a limited number of studies with small sample sizes, reducing their reliability. Our review also did not find a significantly larger number of studies; however, most were RCTs, which are generally well-powered to detect meaningful effects, strengthening the evidence base

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in last paragraph of the “Discussion” section

12.   Comment: Would it be possible to add another sentence or two to this paragraph if there is more evidence available similar to the violence you discussed in the second sentence?

Author’s response: Expanded the paragraph to include additional barriers to maternal healthcare access, such as challenges faced by healthcare workers, patriarchal norms limiting women’s autonomy, cultural preferences for home births, and poor healthcare infrastructure
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in last paragraph under the "Implication of Research" section, with new references (71–79) added

13.   Comment: In the ‘Implications for research’ section, please could you consider moving the 4th and 5th paragraphs (evidence limited to LMICs and limited study resources for searching for non-English records) to the ‘Strengths and limitations of the study’ section – they read more like strengths and limitations rather than implications.

Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have moved the 4th and 5th paragraphs from the "Implications for Research" section to the "Strengths and Limitations of the Study" section for better alignment
.

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in the "Strengths and Limitations" section

14.   Comment: In ‘Neonatal outcomes – 2. Perinatal and neonatal deaths’ – ‘the data has not been adequate to conduct any analysis’ would read better as ‘the data was not adequate to conduct any analysis’. You also mix present and past tense in the Discussion: Second paragraph – ‘there is no separate data on the same’ should read ‘there was no separate data on the same’, and ‘there is no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives...’ should read ‘there was no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives......’.

Author’s response: Revised the text to ensure consistent past tense usage: "No separate data was available, and there was no adequate evidence to show the impact of incentives on maternal and neonatal outcomes.".

Action taken in the manuscript: The change can be seen in second paragraph of the “Discussion” section.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Maternal and reproductive health [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 27]. Reference Source

[2] 2. Owusu PA, Sarkodie SA, Pedersen PA: Relationship between mortality and health care expenditure: Sustainable assessment of health care system. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021 Feb 1 [cited 2025 Mar 6];16(2): e0247413. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Gülmezoglu AM, Lawrie TA, Hezelgrave N, et al.: Interventions to Reduce Maternal and Newborn Morbidity and Mortality. Disease Control Priorities, Third Edition (Volume 2): Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health [Internet]. 2016 Apr 5 [cited 2025 Mar 6];115–136. Reference Source

[4] 4. Overview of pregnancy complications Straight to the point of care. 2024

[5] 5. Hug L, Lee S, Liu Y, et al.: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Trevor Croft, The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program. ICF; 2020.

[6] 6. Fadel SA, Rasaily R, Awasthi S, et al.: Changes in cause-specific neonatal and 1–59-month child mortality in India from 2000 to 2015: a nationally representative survey. Lancet. 2017 Oct; 390(10106): 1972–1980. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. Dandona R, Kumar GA, Henry NJ, et al.: Subnational mapping of under-5 and neonatal mortality trends in India: the Global Burden of Disease Study 2000–17. Lancet. 2020 May 23 [cited 2024 Aug 31]; 395(10237): 1640–1658. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Reference Source

[8] 8. Laaser U, Broniatowski R, Byepu S, et al.: Delays in Achieving Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health Targets for 2021 and 2030 in Liberia. Front Public Health. 2019 Dec 13; 7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] 9. Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Abousbie ZAS, Breckenkamp J, et al.: A gap analysis of SDG 3 and MDG 4/5mortality health targets in the six Arabic countries of North Africa: Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Mauritania. Libyan J Med. 2019 Jan 1; 14(1). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] 10. Mejía-Guevara I, Zuo W, Bendavid E, et al.: Age distribution, trends, and forecasts of under-5 mortality in 31 sub-Saharan African countries: A modeling study. PLoS Med. 2019 Mar 12; 16(3): e1002757. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. Wernimont SA, Fleener D, Summers KM, et al.: The Effect of Financial Incentives on Adherence to Glucose Self-Monitoring during Pregnancy among Patients with Insulin-Requiring Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Am J Perinatol [Internet]. 2024 May 14 [cited 2025 Mar 6];41(S 01): E259–E266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Hunter BM, Harrison S, Portela A, et al.: The effects of cash transfers and vouchers on the use and quality of maternity care services: A systematic review. PLoS One [Internet]. 2017 Mar 1 [cited 2025 Mar 6];12(3). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Powell-Jackson T, Mazumdar S, Mills A: Financial incentives in health: New evidence from India’s Janani Suraksha Yojana. J Health Econ. 2015 Sep 1; 43: 154–169. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare: Janani Suraksha Yojana: National Health Mission [Internet]. New Delhi: Government of India. cited 2025 May 22. Reference Source

[15] 15. Jacobs W, Downey LE: Impact of conditional cash transfer programmes on antenatal care service uptake in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2022 Nov 1 [cited 2025 Mar 9];12(11): e064673. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Scholarly Article or Book Chapter|Impact of Conditional Cash Transfers on Maternal and Newborn Health|ID: 5m60r066x|Carolina Digital Repository [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 9]. Reference Source

[17] 17. Till SR, Everetts D, Haas DM: Incentives for increasing prenatal care use by women in order to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2015 Dec 15 [cited 2025 Mar 9];2015(12): CD009916. Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[18] 18. Notley C: Financial Incentives for Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy and Outcomes for Infants. JAMA Netw Open [Internet]. 2025 Mar 3 [cited 2025 Mar 9];8(3): e250247. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[19] 19. McMeekin N, Sinclair L, Robinson-Smith L, et al.: Financial incentives for quitting smoking in pregnancy: Are they cost-effective? Addiction (Abingdon, England) [Internet]. 2023 Aug 1 [cited 2025 Mar 9];118(8): 1445–1456. PubMed Abstract

[20] 20. Chamberlain C, O’Mara-Eves A, Porter J, et al.: Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 14; 2020(3). Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Morgan L, Stanton ME, Higgs ES, et al.: Financial Incentives and Maternal Health: Where Do We Go from Here?Reference Source

[22] 22. Murray SF, Hunter BM, Bisht R, et al.: Effects of demand-side financing on utilisation, experiences and outcomes of maternity care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Dec 17; 14(1): 30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] 23. Promoting Coverage Overview - AMCHP: [cited 2024 Sep 6]. Reference Source

[24] 24. Linard M, Blondel B, Estellat C, et al.: Association between inadequate antenatal care utilisation and severe perinatal and maternal morbidity: an analysis in the PreCARE cohort. BJOG. 2018 Apr 2; 125(5): 587–595. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Makate M, Makate C: The impact of prenatal care quality on neonatal, infant and child mortality in Zimbabwe: evidence from the demographic and health surveys. Health Policy Plan. 2017 Apr 1; 32(3): 395–404. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. New guidelines on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience.[cited 2024 Sep 9]. Reference Source

[27] 27. An evidence map of social, behavioural and community engagement interventions for reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health.[cited 2024 Sep 9]. Reference Source

[28] 28. Social, Behavioural and Community Engagement Interventions for Maternal Health.[cited 2024 Sep 9]. Reference Source Reference Source

[29] 29. Vlaev I, King D, Darzi A, et al.: Changing health behaviors using financial incentives: A review from behavioral economics. BMC Public Health. 2019 Aug 7 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 19(1): 1–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] 30. Holla R, Unnikrishnan B, Vijayamma R, et al.: Incentives for pregnant mothers during antenatal care for better maternal and neonatal health outcomes in low and middle income countries: A systematic review protocol. F1000Res. 2022 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 11. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[31] 31. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 372. Reference Source

[32] 32. WDI - Classifying countries by income: [cited 2024 Sep 9]. Reference Source

[33] 33. Preterm birth [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 10]. Reference Source

[34] 34. Low birth weight [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 10]. Reference Source

[35] 35. Park K: Preventive medicine in obstetrics, paediatrics and geriatrics. In. Park’s Textbook of Preventive and Social Medicine. 28th ed.Jabalpur, Banarsidas Bhanot; 2025; p. 656.

[36] 36. Park K: Preventive medicine in obstetrics, paediatrics and geriatrics. In. Park’s Textbook of Preventive and Social Medicine. 28th ed.Jabalpur, Banarsidas Bhanot; 2025; p. 657.

[37] 37. Nkangu MN, Okwen PM, Mbuagbaw L, et al.: A protocol for a pilot cluster randomized control trial of e-vouchers and mobile phone application to enhance access to maternal health services in Cameroon. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2020 Apr 14 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 6(1): 45. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[38] 38. Xu T, Lai X, He K, et al.: Subsidy programme for gestational diabetes mellitus screening and lifestyle management in rural areas of western China: a study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 1 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 11(7): e045503. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Reference Source

[39] 39. Ochieng CA, Haghparast-Bidgoli H, Batura N, et al.: Conditional cash transfers to retain rural Kenyan women in the continuum of care during pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period: Protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2019 Mar 1 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 20(1): 1–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[40] 40. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial|Cochrane Training.[cited 2024 Sep 9]. Reference Source

[41] 41. Kusuma D, Cohen J, McConnell M, et al.: Can cash transfers improve determinants of maternal mortality? Evidence from the household and community programs in Indonesia. Soc Sci Med. 2016 Aug 1; 163: 10–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] 42. Hemminki E, Long Q, Zhang WH, et al.: Impact of financial and educational interventions on maternity care: results of cluster randomized trials in rural China, CHIMACA. Matern Child Health J. 2013 Feb [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 17(2): 208–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Briaux J, Martin-Prevel Y, Carles S, et al.: Evaluation of an unconditional cash transfer program targeting children’s first-1,000-days linear growth in rural Togo: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2020 Nov 17 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 17(11): e1003388. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[44] 44. Handa S, Peterman A, Seidenfeld D, et al.: Income Transfers and Maternal Health: Evidence from a National Randomized Social Cash Transfer Program in Zambia. Health Econ. 2016 Feb 1 [cited 2024 Sep 10]; 25(2): 225–236. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[45] 45. Okeke EN, Abubakar IS: Healthcare at the beginning of life and child survival: Evidence from a cash transfer experiment in Nigeria. J Dev Econ. 2020 Mar 1; 143: 102426. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[46] 46. Barber SL, Gertler PJ: Empowering women to obtain high quality care: evidence from an evaluation of Mexico’s conditional cash transfer programme. Health Policy Plan. 2009 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 24(1): 18–25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[47] 47. Morris SS, Flores R, Olinto P, et al.: Monetary incentives in primary health care and effects on use and coverage of preventive health care interventions in rural Honduras: Cluster randomised trial. Lancet. 2004 Dec 4 [cited 2024 Sep 9]; 364(9450): 2030–2037. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[48] 48. Wang P, Connor AL, Guo E, et al.: Measuring the impact of non-monetary incentives on facility delivery in rural Zambia: a clustered randomised controlled trial. Trop Med Int Health. 2016 Apr 1 [cited 2024 Sep 10]; 21(4): 515–524. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[49] 49. Liu JX, Shen J, Wilson N, et al.: Conditional cash transfers to prevent mother-to-child transmission in low facility-delivery settings: Evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Nigeria. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Jan 16 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 19(1): 1–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[50] 50. Kahn C, Iraguha M, Baganizi M, et al.: Cash transfers to increase Antenatal care utilization in Kisoro, Uganda: A pilot study. Afr J Reprod Health. 2015 Sep 1 [cited 2024 Sep 12]; 19(3): 144–150. Reference Source

[51] 51. Grépin KA, Habyarimana J, Jack W: Cash on delivery: Results of a randomized experiment to promote maternal health care in Kenya. J Health Econ. 2019 May 1; 65: 15–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[52] 52. Toolan M, Barnard K, Lynch M, et al.: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of antenatal interventions to improve maternal and neonatal health in Nepal. AJOG Glob Rep. 2022 Feb 1; 2(1): 100019. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[53] 53. Bhatt H, Tiwari S, Ensor T, et al.: Contribution of Nepal’s Free Delivery Care Policies in Improving Utilisation of Maternal Health Services. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018 Jul 1 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 7(7): 645–655. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[54] 54. Flueckiger RM, Colaco R, Adhikari B, et al.: A community led innovation benefiting women and children: Health facilities and credit cooperative work together to promote maternal health care in Sahare VDC, Nepal. Health Care Women Int. 2018 Sep 2 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 39(9): 1008–1019. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[55] 55. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions|Cochrane Training.[cited 2024 Sep 9]. Reference Source

[56] 56. New country classifications by income level: 2019-2020 [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 11]. Reference Source

[57] 57. Middle Income Countries Overview: Development news, research, data|World Bank [Internet]. [cited 2024 Sep 11]. Reference Source

[58] 58. Jackson MA, Brown AL, Baker AL, et al.: The Incentives to Quit tobacco in Pregnancy (IQuiP) protocol: piloting a financial incentive-based smoking treatment for women attending substance use in pregnancy antenatal services. BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 1 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 9(11): e032330. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Reference Source

[59] 59. Higgins ST, Bernstein IM, Washio Y, et al.: Effects of Smoking Cessation with Voucher-Based Contingency Management on Birth Outcomes. Addiction (Abingdon, England). 2010 Nov [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 105(11): 2023–2030. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[60] 60. Lillington L, Royce J, Novak D, et al.: Evaluation of a smoking cessation program for pregnant minority women. Cancer Pract. 1995; 3(3): 157–163. PubMed Abstract

[61] 61. Kurti AN, Tang K, Bolivar HA, et al.: Smartphone-based financial incentives to promote smoking cessation during pregnancy: A pilot study. Prev Med (Baltim). 2020 Nov 1 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 140: 106201. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[62] 62. Boyd K, Boyd KA, Briggs AH, et al.: Are financial incentives cost-effective for smoking cessation amongst pregnant women? Kathleen Boyd. Eur J Public Health. 2014 Oct 1 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 24(suppl_2). Publisher Full Text

[63] 63. McGregor S, Henderson KJ, Kaldor JM: How Are Health Research Priorities Set in Low and Middle Income Countries? A Systematic Review of Published Reports. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 2 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 9(10): e108787. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[64] 64. Solnes Miltenburg A, van Pelt S , de Bruin W , Shields-Zeeman L: Mobilizing community action to improve maternal health in a rural district in Tanzania: lessons learned from two years of community group activities. Glob Health Action. 2019 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 12(1): 1621590. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[65] 65. Shrivastava S, Sivakami M: Evidence of “obstetric violence” in India: an integrative review. J Biosoc Sci. 2020 Jul 1 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 52(4): 610–628. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[66] 66. Perera D, Lund R, Swahnberg K, et al.: “When helpers hurt”: women’s and midwives’ stories of obstetric violence in state health institutions, Colombo district, Sri Lanka. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Jun 7 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 18(1): 211. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[67] 67. The prevention and elimination of disrespect and abuse during facility-based childbirth.[cited 2024 Sep 11]. Reference Source

[68] 68. Saprii L, Richards E, Kokho P, et al.: Community health workers in rural India: Analysing the opportunities and challenges Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) face in realising their multiple roles. Hum Resour Health. 2015 Dec 9 [cited 2024 Sep 11]; 13(1): 1–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[69] 69. Reddy B, Thomas S, Karachiwala B, et al.: A scoping review of the impact of organisational factors on providers and related interventions in LMICs: Implications for respectful maternity care. PLOS Glob. Public Health [Internet]. 2022 Oct 1 [cited 2025 Mar 10];2(10): e0001134. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[70] 70. Janaki S, Prabakar S: Examining socioeconomic factors influencing maternal health in pregnancy. J Hum Behav Soc Environ [Internet]. 2024 Feb 8 [cited 2025 Mar 10]; 35(4): 469–487. Publisher Full Text

[71] 71. Braveman PA, Heck K, Egerter S, et al.: The role of socioeconomic factors in Black-White disparities in preterm birth. Am J Public Health [Internet]. 2015 Apr 1 [cited 2025 Mar 10];105(4): 694–702. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[72] 72. Kumari U, Sharma RK, Keshari JR, et al.: Environmental Exposure: Effect on Maternal Morbidity and Mortality and Neonatal Health. Cureus [Internet]. 2023 May 4 [cited 2025 Mar 10];15(5). Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[73] 73. Bloom SS, Wypij D, Das Gupta M: Dimensions of women’s autonomy and the influence on maternal health care utilization in a North Indian city. Demography [Internet]. 2001 Feb 1 [cited 2025 Mar 10];38(1): 67–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[74] 74. Shah R, Rehfuess EA, Paudel D, et al.: Barriers and facilitators to institutional delivery in rural areas of Chitwan district, Nepal: A qualitative study. Reprod Health [Internet]. 2018 Jun 20 [cited 2025 Mar 10];15(1): 1–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[75] 75. Gething PW, Johnson FA, Frempong-Ainguah F, et al.: Geographical access to care at birth in Ghana: A barrier to safe motherhood. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2012 Nov 16 [cited 2025 Mar 10];12(1): 1–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[76] 76. Choulagai B, Onta S, Subedi N, et al.: Barriers to using skilled birth attendants’ services in mid- and far-western Nepal: A cross-sectional study. BMC Int Health Hum Rights [Internet]. 2013 Dec 23 [cited 2025 Mar 10];13(1): 1–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[77] 77. Rao M, Holla R: PRISMA Flowchart of SR incentive. figshare. Figure. 2024. Publisher Full Text

[78] 78. Rao M, Holla R: PRISMA checklist of SR Incentive. Dataset. figshare. 2024. Publisher Full Text

[79] 79. Rao M, Holla R: PRISMA checklist of SR Incentive. Dataset. figshare. 2024. Publisher Full Text

Incentives for pregnant mothers during antenatal care for better maternal and neonatal health outcomes in low and middle income countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

What is already known?

Rationale: Why is this important?

Objectives of our review

Method

Identification, selection, and eligibility criteria

Search strategy

Data collection and analyses

Figure 1. Identification of the included studies.

Results

Characteristics of included studies

Table 1. Characteristics of included study.

Participant, study design and setting

Maternal outcomes

Table 2. Effect of interventions.

Figure 2. Effect of incentive-based intervention on the maternal outcome delivered at the facility.

Figure 3. Effect of incentive-based intervention on frequency of prenatal care.

Figure 4. Effect of incentive-based intervention on tetanus vaccine.

Neonatal outcomes

Risk of bias assessment

Discussion

Strengths and limitations of this study

Implications for research

Conclusion

Reporting guidelines

Ethics and consent

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Acknowledgement

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated