Socio-demographic profile of Respondents
Table 1 shows a total of 216 households participated in the study (54 cases and 162 controls) with 100% response rate. Among the participants enrolled into the scheme, 14 (24.1%) were rural households compared to 41(75.9%) urban households. Education, household income (>16000 ETB) showed significant difference between the cases and controls. Sex of the household head, size of the household and place of residence have not shown any significance difference (Table 1).
Table 1. Bivariate analysis of socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents, Awbarre district, Somali region, Ethiopia 2021(n=216).
Variables
|
CBHI Enrolment
|
Crude OR
|
P=value
|
|
No (162)
|
Yes (54)
|
|
|
Age of household head
|
|
|
|
|
18-30
|
36 (22.2%)
|
14(25.9%)
|
1.91(0.76,4.74)
|
0.165
|
31-40
|
65 (40.1%)
|
24(44.4%)
|
1.8(0.78,4.09)
|
0.168
|
41-50
|
38(23.5%)
|
9(16.7%)
|
0.13(0.02,1.05)
|
0.056
|
>50
|
23 (14.2%)
|
7 (13.0%)
|
1
|
|
Sex of household head
|
|
|
|
|
Female
|
81(50%)
|
29(53.7%)
|
1.16(0.63,2.15)
|
0.637
|
Male
|
81(50%)
|
25(46.3%)
|
1
|
|
Marital status of household head
|
|
|
|
|
Divorced/Widowed
|
11(6.9%)
|
1(1.8%)
|
0.39(0.04,4.35)
|
0.447
|
Married
|
136(85.5%)
|
52(91.2%)
|
1.57(0.43,5.74)
|
0.495
|
Single
|
12(7.5%)
|
4(7%)
|
1
|
|
Educational status
|
|
|
|
|
No formal education
|
120(74.1%)
|
33(61.1%)
|
0.19(0.06,0.66)
|
0.008
|
Primary
|
37(22.8%)
|
14(25.9%)
|
0.27(0.07,0.99)
|
0.049
|
Secondary/post-secondary
|
5(3.1%)
|
7(13%)
|
1
|
1
|
Occupation
|
|
|
|
|
Agro-pastoralist
|
91(56.2%)
|
25(46.3%)
|
0.41(0.06,2.60)
|
0.346
|
Daily laborer
|
42(25.9%)
|
15(27.8%)
|
0.54(0.8,3.52)
|
0.516
|
Merchant
|
26(16.0%)
|
12(22.2%)
|
0.69(0.10,4.70)
|
0.707
|
Other
|
3(1.9%)
|
2(3.7%)
|
1
|
|
Place of residence
|
|
|
|
|
Rural
|
53(32.7%)
|
13(24.1%)
|
0.65(0.32,1.32)
|
0.235
|
Urban
|
109(67.3%)
|
41(75.9%)
|
1
|
|
Elderly person above 65 in HH
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
115(71.0%)
|
40(74.1%)
|
1.17(0.58,2.34)
|
0.663
|
Yes
|
47(29.0%)
|
14(25.9%)
|
1
|
|
Household Size
|
|
|
|
|
< 3
|
8(4.9%)
|
2(3.7%)
|
0.70(0.14,3.48)
|
0.665
|
3 – 4
|
23(14.2%)
|
10(18.5%)
|
1.22(0.52, 2.85)
|
0.646
|
4 – 6
|
44(27.2%)
|
11(20.4%)
|
0.7(0.32,1.53)
|
0.372
|
>6
|
87(53.7%)
|
31(57.4%)
|
1
|
|
Annual household income (ETB)
|
|
|
|
|
< 8,000
|
87(53.7%)
|
20(37.0%)
|
1
|
|
8,001—16,000
|
54(33.3%)
|
14(25.9%)
|
1.13(0.53, 2.42)
|
0.757
|
16,001—28,000
|
12(7.4%)
|
8(14.8%)
|
2.90(1.05, 8.03)
|
0.040
|
>28,000
|
9(5.6%)
|
12(22.2%)
|
5.80(2.15, 15.63)
|
0.001
|
Table 2 shows result of the bivariate analysis households with information about CBHI were more likely to enroll into CBHI scheme compared to those with no information COR = 12.5(1.67, 94.23). Being a member of a local solidarity group like local money saving association were more likely to go for CBHI enrollment COR=2.23(1.15, 4.31). Also, households who considered the premium (preset payment of 250 ETB) as affordable were more likely to enroll in the CBHI, COR = 2.71(1.08, 6.80). (Table 2).
Table 2. Bivariate analysis of household characteristics of respondents and CBHI enrolment, Awbarre district, Somali region, Ethiopia April 2021(n=262).
Variables
|
CBHI Enrolment
|
COR
|
P=value
|
Heard of CBHI?
|
No (Control)
|
Yes (Case)
|
|
|
No
|
31(19.1%)
|
1(1.9%)
|
1
|
|
Yes
|
131(80.9%)
|
53(98.1%)
|
12.5(1.67,94.23)
|
0.014
|
Source of info about CBHI? For enrolled.
|
|
|
|
|
TV/radio
|
5(3.1%)
|
4(7.4%)
|
|
|
House to house awareness creation
|
11(6.8%)
|
3(5.6%)
|
|
|
CBHI officials in Public meeting
|
34(21.0%)
|
9(16.7%)
|
|
|
Health professionals in health facilities
|
13(8.0%)
|
8(14.8%)
|
|
|
Neighbor/friends
|
28(17.3%)
|
2(3.7%)
|
|
|
Mixed
|
40(24.7%)
|
27(50.0%)
|
|
|
Not heard
|
31(19.1%)
|
1(1.9%)
|
|
|
Perceived affordability of the premium (250 ETB) per year
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
41(25.3%)
|
6(11.1%)
|
1
|
|
Yes
|
121(74.7%)
|
48(88.9%)
|
2.71(1.08, 6.80)
|
0.034
|
Enrolled in a solidarity group
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
126(77.8%)
|
33(61.1%)
|
1
|
|
Yes
|
36(22.2%)
|
21(38.9%)
|
2.23(1.15, 4.31)
|
0.018
|
Trust on the CBHI scheme?
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
20(12.3%)
|
4(7.4%)
|
1
|
|
Yes
|
142(87.7%)
|
50(92.6%)
|
1.76(0.57, 5.40)
|
0.323
|
Chronic illness in the Household?
|
|
|
|
|
Does not exist
|
126(77.8%)
|
37(68.5%)
|
|
1
|
Exists
|
36(22.2%)
|
17(31.5%)
|
1.61(0.81, 3.19)
|
0.173
|
Time to reach to nearest health facility?
|
|
|
|
|
<30 minutes
|
129(79.6%)
|
51(94.4%)
|
5.53(0.71, 43.19)
|
0.103
|
>60 minutes
|
19(11.7%)
|
2(3.7%)
|
1.47(0.12, 17.91)
|
0.761
|
30–60 minutes
|
14(8.6%)
|
1(1.9%)
|
1
|
|
Determinants of CBHI enrolment in Aw-barre district.
Table 3 shows the results of multivariate analysis, variables considered into multivariate logistic regression model were all those with P-value < 0.25 at bivariate analysis level.
At multivariate level, household with high income, being a member of a solidarity group and having awareness about CBHI scheme were found to be the determinants of CBHI enrollment.
Households with better income were almost four times more likely to enroll CBHI than low income households (AOR = 3.56(1.03, 12.30), P=0.044). Similarly, Households with no information about CBHI service were nine times more likely to enroll than households with no information about CBHI scheme, (AOR = 9.41(1.16,76.19), P=0.036). Moreover, households which were members of a solidarity group like saving association or other community-based organizations were almost three times more likely to enroll than non-members (AOR = 2.88(1.17, 7.12), P=0.022).
Table 3. Determinants of CBHI enrolment using multivariable analysis in Aw-barre district, Somali Region, Ethiopia, April 2021(n=262).
Variables
|
CBHI Enrolment
|
AOR
|
P=value
|
Heard of CBHI?
|
No (Control)
|
Yes (Case)
|
|
|
No
|
31(19.1%)
|
1(1.9%)
|
|
|
Yes
|
131(80.9%)
|
53(98.1%)
|
9.41(1.16,76.19)
|
0.036
|
Perceived affordability of the premium (250 ETB) per year
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
41(25.3%)
|
6(11.1%)
|
|
|
Yes
|
121(74.7%)
|
48(88.9%)
|
1.68(0.57, 5.01)
|
0.347
|
Enrolled in a solidarity group
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
126(77.8%)
|
33(61.1%)
|
1
|
|
Yes
|
36(22.2%)
|
21(38.9%)
|
2.88(1.17, 7.12)
|
0.022
|
Household Income in ETB
|
|
|
|
|
< 8000
|
87(53.7%)
|
20(37.0%)
|
|
|
8001—16000
|
54(33.3%)
|
14(25.9%)
|
0.73(0.31, 1.75)
|
0.484
|
16001 –28,000
|
12(7.4%)
|
8(14.8%)
|
2.73(0.77, 9.57)
|
0.118
|
>28,000
|
9(5.6%)
|
12(22.2%)
|
3.56(1.03, 12.30)
|
0.044
|
Findings from qualitative part
Four FGDs were conducted – two among CBHI enrolled households and two among non-enrolled households in rural and urban kebeles. The common reason for joining CBHI was the need to get accessible health care services free of charge for family members.
“I registered to get medicines and free health care services for my family”
[CBHI member in Lafa-issa kebele of Awbarre woreda].
For non-CBHI members, the commonest reasons for not being enrolled were not heard of CBHI followed by unaffordable payment.
“It is through this FGD session that I first hear community-based health Insurance scheme”
[Non-CBHI member in Lafa-issa kebele of Awbarre woreda].
Regarding indigents targeting, FGD members from different kebeles had varied views. Whilst some FGD members claimed that the poor were identified fairly in their kebele and their payments were covered, other FGD members from the other kebele claimed that indigent identification and targeting did not happen at all.
“Membership registration in this kebele was based only on the ability to contribute 250 Birr, no single indigent was registered”.
[CBHI member in Abayfulan kebele, Awbarre district].
“The selection process for the poor households were transparent and fair in my view. And I think the process was based on the economic severity of the households. I can say needy households were not left out”
[CBHI member in Lafaissa, Aw-barre district].
Key informants at regional and district level have described commendable progress of the scheme within a short period and the challenges that came along with it.
“Some of the major achievements include helping the community understand the benefits of insurance, managing many poor households and people with chronic illnesses to get enrolled into the scheme and receive free service including the laboratory services. But some challenges such as community misunderstandings require further work” –
[Awbarre woreda, CBHI coordinator]