CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02879708D0168Updated Dec 11, 2024

Effect of Social Accountability on Improving Service Delivery and Outcomes in the Public Sector in Uttar Pradesh, India

An interventional study of Information Only and Information and Facilitation in Health Behavior, sponsored by Duke University. Completed at 1 site in India. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-12-11.

Sponsored by Duke University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
105,000
Allocation
Randomized
Sex
All
01

Study summary

In several low and middle-income countries, Social Accountability (SA) interventions have been introduced as an innovative approach to governance, aiming to improve delivery of public services. These interventions typically include information provision to citizens regarding their rights/entitlements and local provider performance, and additionally, facilitation of community engagement with providers and officials.

The state government of Uttar Pradesh (UP) and the Uttar Pradesh Health Systems Strengthening Project (UPHSSP) have identified 12 districts where the social accountability initiative will be introduced on a priority basis. This study focuses on interventions in 2 of these districts (Sultanpur and Fatehpur), to study mechanisms through which information and collective action lead to improved accountability and outcomes. Within the 2 districts, the study is implemented as a cluster randomized evaluation with 120 villages randomized into 2 treatment arms and one control arm.

This study aims to: (a) measure the causal effect of SA interventions on key outcomes (health status, quality of service); (b) test the effectiveness of social networks based strategies to disseminate information for community engagement; and (c) study individuals' decisions to participate in collective action efforts in the context of social networks and information interventions. In addition to evaluating the impact of the SA interventions, the study aims to generate new knowledge on relative strengths of information seeding strategies, identifying those that maximize the spread of information through the village network, and subsequently estimate peer effects on participation decisions.

Read the detailed description

The World Bank-supported Uttar Pradesh Health System Strengthening Project (UPHSSP) includes a component that calls for the implementation of social accountability (SA) interventions in UP, which aim to stimulate community action to demand better services, enhance positive health behavior and promote social audits of service delivery and resource allocation. Two key channels through which SA interventions operate are through (a) information provision and (b) fostering community engagement that enables grievance redressal. Prior to the implementation of SA interventions at scale in UP, this study aims to conduct rigorous impact evaluation of key components of SA interventions in order to learn about potential impact in the UP context and to learn about critical implementation issues regarding optimal methods to deliver information in the state with available technology and social networks.

The evaluation's overarching research questions are whether SA interventions in UP improve (1) objective measures of health service quality in practice, (2) village-level satisfaction with health services, and (3) village-level health outcomes. Importantly, the evaluation will seek to identify whether the information provision that is a standard part of social accountability interventions has an independent effect on outcomes that is comparable to the effect of the combined information and community engagement components. The investigators also test the effectiveness of alternative models of delivering information in order to inform implementation of accountability interventions at large scale in public policy settings. Given that the community health workers targeted by the intervention focus on maternal and child health, our measures of health system performance along these three dimensions will also emphasize maternal and child health. Measures of health service quality include availability of services such as immunization and primary care services, distribution of food and nutritional supplementation as recommended in the national nutrition program, and provider absenteeism. Measures of satisfaction with local health services will include process measures including availability of service, waiting time for services and whether or not community members perceive that they are treated by providers with respect as well as general subjective assessments of satisfaction with services. Health outcome measures will include child anthropometrics (weight-for-age and weight-for-height), self-reported morbidity in the preceding two weeks (diarrhea, cough, fever, headache, days of usual activities lost due to illness), and neonatal (0-28 days), infant (under age one), and child (under age five) mortality as well as maternal health indicators such as percentage of facility deliveries among mothers who gave birth in the past year.

Within the 2 study districts (Sultanpur and Fatehpur), in 120 villages that were selected at random, the SA interventions aim to distinguish the effect of provision of information and facilitated engagement of community members, from that of the effect of information alone. The 120 villages are randomized to either a control arm, or one of two treatment arms described below.

TREATMENT ARM 1 - Information \& Awareness:

Community members will receive information about their rights, roles and responsibilities of healthcare providers, and also about health-related activities and programs taking place in their village. Importantly, besides assessing the effect of providing information on health service delivery and various health outcomes, our evaluation will also determine how best to provide the information.

Another innovation in this project is to disseminate monthly information about health system related issues using interactive voice response messages (IVRs), phone calls, or home visits to households in the treatment villages. IVRs include a brief message about a health (or health system) indicator, or information regarding upcoming Village Health, Sanitation and Nutrition Committee (VHSNC) meetings or VHNDs, as well as a response option that can be used to collect data on what information households have received and about their participation in VHSNC meetings/VHNDs. These IVRs will be sent out over multiple months to cover approximately 24,000 households in 80 treatment villages each time. During preparatory phase that was conducted in parallel with the baseline survey, detailed data on social networks was collected in each village and identified central individuals in the village.

The investigators will use the data on networks in villages, combined with the information that is disseminated on a monthly basis to econometrically estimate how information dissemination within networks affects awareness and participation in social accountability activities as well as in utilization of health services.

TREATMENT ARM 2 - Information PLUS Community Engagement:

In addition to all the information interventions listed in treatment arm 1, community engagement will be facilitated in Arm 2 villages. The community engagement component aims to enhance the participation of the community in creating social accountability. The intervention will provide trained facilitators to help community members engage in a participatory process with Village Health, Sanitation, and Nutrition Committees (VHSNCs) and identify key deficiencies for improvement in health services that most concern community members. The facilitators are trained to help organize meetings and are provided a detailed checklist of activities that need to be undertaken prior to the day of the meetings such as inviting the block level officers and ensuring that logistics requirements for Village Health and Nutrition Days (VHNDs) are conveyed to VHSNC members in advance of the meetings. The facilitated meetings with healthcare providers and local and block level representatives aim to empower community members to demand better health services and convey these demands more effectively to providers and officials. The three key health workers at the village level (ASHA, ANM, and AWW) report to the local (village level) elected representatives and block level authorities, who receive feedback from the community in the accountability interventions. Moreover, through repeated community meetings village-level health workers are expected to respond to transparency and accountability innovations by improving quality of services delivered to their local constituents resulting in improvements in population health outcomes.

These interventions will focus on services delivered by village-level health workers including those providing primary care and maternal and child health services. The households surveyed in the project will be those with children less than 5 years of age. The interventions will cover and include all population subgroups, castes, and religious minorities in the treatment villages, and also collect data on all of these subgroups.

02

Conditions studied

  • Health Behavior

Keywords

  • Social Accountability
  • Healthcare Quality
  • Health System Strengthening
  • Child Health
  • Childhood pneumonia
  • Childhood diarrhea
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Duke University is the lead sponsor of 2,025 studies on the registry; 275 are open to participants now.

Of its 194 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 159 (82%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • households residing in the villages selected for the evaluation

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • none
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Health services research
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
105,000 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • No intervention
    Control

    40 (of 120) randomly selected villages receive no intervention

  • Other
    Information Only

    40 randomly selected villages are assigned to the "information only" arm where households will receive information regarding their rights and entitlements pertaining to healthcare, certain health outcomes specific to their village, as well as health-related activities happening in their village.

    Other: Information Only

  • Other
    Information and Facilitation

    The remaining 40 villages will receive similar information as the villages in the Information Only Arm, but will also have facilitators present that ensure the existence of the VHSNC at the village level as well as the occurrence of VHSNC monthly meetings.

    Other: Information and Facilitation

Interventions

  • OtherInformation Only

    Households will receive information regarding their rights and entitlements pertaining to healthcare, certain health outcomes specific to their village, as well as health-related activities happening in their village (such as the VHSNC meetings and Village Health and Nutrition Days). Information will be disseminated through an initial visit to all households, and from then on either through (1) broadcast messages sent to households via mobile phone, (2) central individuals in the village social network who will be asked to spread that information, or (3) public officials charged with spreading the information throughout the village.

  • OtherInformation and Facilitation

    In addition to the information interventions described above, this intervention will provide trained facilitators to help community members engage in a participatory process with VHSNCs and identify key deficiencies for improvement in health services that most concern community members. The facilitators are trained to help organize meetings and are provided a detailed checklist of activities to be undertaken prior to the the meetings. The three key health workers at the village level (ASHA, ANM, and AWW) report to the local (village level) elected representatives and block level authorities, who receive feedback from the community in the accountability interventions.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Weight-for-height Z scores

    Time frame: 12 months after intervention implementation

Secondary outcomes

  1. Satisfaction with providers - averaged from a rating index and/or constructed by a PCA on the rating index

    Level of satisfaction with local healthcare providers, as estimated by (1) averaging rating scores across a satisfaction index (questions asking the respondent to rate aspects of their last experience with the provider on a scale of 1-5); and/or (2) running a principal components analysis on the same index and taking the first component.

    Time frame: 12 months after intervention implementation

  2. Participation - as measured from self-report

    household participation in VHSNC meetings and attendance at VHNDs, measured by self-report

    Time frame: 4 months, measured each month, and at 1 year during endline survey

  3. U5 mortality rate

    under 5 mortality rates

    Time frame: 12 months after intervention implementation

  4. incidence of diarrhea

    Time frame: 12 months after intervention implementation

  5. duration of diarrhea illness

    Time frame: 12 months after intervention implementation

Other outcomes

  1. Info spread

    proportion of the village that received/retained information spread through the different info dissemination strategies

    Time frame: 4 months, measured each month

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Uttar Pradesh State Institute of Rural Development
    Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226202, India
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Ringold, D., Holla, A., Koziol, M., & Srinivasan, S. (2012).

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — The investigators plan to make the de-identified data set publicly available.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 11, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02879708
Lead sponsor
Duke University
Collaborators
World Bank, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Stanford University
Responsible party
Manoj Mohanan (Professor, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 26, 2016
Start date
Apr 2015
Primary completion
Jul 2018
Completion
Feb 2021
Last update
Dec 11, 2024

Study contacts

Manoj Mohanan, PhD, MSPH
principal investigator · Duke University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion