Rwanda Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to United States was US$52 during 2016, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. Rwanda Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to United States - data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on July of 2025.

Statistics illustrates consumption, production, prices, and trade of Primary Cells and Primary Batteries in Rwanda from 2007 to 2024.

Statistics illustrates consumption, production, prices, and trade of Cell cultures, whether or not modified; other cell cultures not including cell therapy products in Rwanda from 2007 to 2024.

Statistics illustrates monthly exports of cell cultures, whether or not modified; other cell cultures not including cell therapy products in Rwanda from January 2019 to May 2025.

Rwanda Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to United Arab Emirates was US$274 during 2022, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. Rwanda Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to United Arab Emirates - data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on July of 2025.

The number of mobile cellular subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in Rwanda has grown steadily in the first two decades of the century, reaching from nearly zero to above 80 between 2000 and 2020. In 2023, there were approximately 91 mobile subscriptions registered for every 100 people in the country.

Rwanda Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to Sudan was US$6.06 Thousand during 2021, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. Rwanda Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to Sudan - data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on July of 2025.

Rwanda Imports of primary cells and primary batteries from Uruguay was US$21.54 Thousand during 2018, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. Rwanda Imports of primary cells and primary batteries from Uruguay - data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on August of 2025.

Statistics illustrates the import volume of Yeasts (active or inactive); other single-cell micro-organisms, dead (but not including vaccines of heading no. 3002); prepared baking powders in Rwanda from 2007 to 2024 by trade partner.

Description: Cell Office contains location of cell. A cell is one of the administrative entity in Rwanda since 2005, it is under sector. The cell Office data was created in 2022 Population and Housing Census, Census mapping phase. The 2022 Population and Housing Census mapping collected information on more than 4 million buildings in Rwanda using extracted building foot print by on Maxar high resolution satellite image. For each building, attributes about the building uses and other details were collected. Such details enabled the collection of different public offices including district offices. The following are attributes that the datasets contains: Province and district, sector and cell corresponds to the name of administrative units where the cell office is located. The field cell_id: contains the unique ID for the celly_coord: Latitude in decimal degree, the format is in decimal degrees using the World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984. x_coord: Longitude in decimal degree, the format is in decimal degrees using the World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984.

United Arab Emirates Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to Rwanda was US$103.78 Thousand during 2023, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. United Arab Emirates Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to Rwanda - data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on July of 2025.

Rwanda Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to Ivory Coast was US$23.99 Thousand during 2016, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. Rwanda Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to Ivory Coast - data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on July of 2025.

Abstract

The program of land tenure regularization (LTR) aims to clarify rights on all of Rwanda estimated 10 million land parcels as a precondition for their formalization and full legal recognition, manifested in the award of title certificates to land holders.

For this study, researchers from the World Bank assessed the impact of the rural pilots that preceded the national roll-out of Rwanda's LTR program using a geographic discontinuity design with spatial fixed effects. The study focused on the following questions: - the extent of perceived land tenure security; - the level of land transactions; - land-related investment undertaken; - the treatment of boys and girls in terms of inheritance; - perception about the fairness of the process and access to information.

In the absence of a usable baseline survey, researchers relied on cross-sectional data, sampled from a narrow band on both sides of the pilot cell borders to assess program impacts. A survey administered in April–May 2010, about two and a half years after the start of LTR, was used to obtain information for 3,554 households with some 6,330 parcels.

Geographic coverage

Biguhu, Kabushinge, Nyamugali and Mwoga

Analysis unit

Household and parcel (land) level

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The LTR pilots applied a participatory and low-cost process to systematically cover a total of 3,513 households with some 15,000 plots in four areas (one of them urban) that were chosen to reflect the country's heterogeneity.

The challenge of this study was lack of baseline data to make a credible assessment of the pilot program. This challenge was addressed by sampling on both sides of the borders of the pilot areas-using high precision satellite images and the cadastral survey-that allows the comparison of outcome variables between households inside (treated) and outside (non-treated) of the borders of the pilot cells. The discontinuity created by administrative boundaries in the introduction of the pilot program is, therefore, exploited as an identification strategy on the assumption that households close to a cell boundary, before the start of the program, were similar in unobservable factors affecting relevant outcomes. The sample was designed to yield numbers of households in each pilot cell equivalent to their share in the total, with a size of 3,554 households with some 6,330 land parcels, intended to be split equally across pilot and their neighboring cells.

The sample was to be distributed equally on both sides of the pilot cell boundary to create a treatment group (within the titled cell) and a control group (those just across the border in nonprogram cells). Parcel index maps created by the program were used to sample within pilot cells. For adjacent (control) cells, researchers used high resolution satellite imagery to visually identify dwellings that could then serve as a sample frame.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Rwanda Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to China was US$9.89 Thousand during 2020, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. Rwanda Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to China - data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on July of 2025.

*Excludes all Masaka volunteers (Masaka eosinophil counts varied significantly from those of other sites) and one volunteer with a missing value at Kigali.∧Excludes all Lusaka volunteers (Lusaka basophil counts varied significantly from those of other sites) and one volunteer with a missing value at Kigali.

United States Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to Rwanda was US$8.88 Thousand during 2024, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. United States Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to Rwanda - data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on July of 2025.

*One missing value at Kigali.

‡Volunteers included in the IAVI African laboratory reference intervals study analysis.†Volunteers that attended the seasonal visit and were included in the seasonal analysis study.

Norway Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to Rwanda was US$135 during 2019, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. Norway Exports of primary cells and primary batteries to Rwanda - data, historical chart and statistics - was last updated on July of 2025.

Abstract

Since June 2006, Rwanda has implemented a national supply-side performance-based financing (PBF) program in hospitals and health centers. This 'first generation' PBF program provided financial rewards to health facilities in order to promote maternal, child, and HIV/AIDS healthcare. A prospective, rigorous impact evaluation (IE) was developed with the commitment of the Government of Rwanda (GOR) to assess the impacts of PBF on health outcomes and determine the possibility of scaling-up the PBF initiative nationwide. The IE showed significant positive impacts on quality of prenatal care, as well as increased utilization of institutional delivery and child preventive care services. However, it highlighted the limited effect of the supply-side intervention on other services, such as the demand for timely prenatal care and family planning.

In 2010 the 'second generation' of PBF in Rwanda, the Community Performance-Based Financing (CPBF) program, was initiated to tackle the remaining issue of low utilization of health services by mothers and their children. The Community PBF implemented the following three interventions: (i) demand-side in-kind incentives for women, (ii) financial rewards for community health worker (CHW) cooperatives, and (iii) combined demand-side and CHW rewards. The three CPBF interventions were introduced in October 2010 in randomly selected sectors. The CPBF program is evaluated by a prospective, randomized impact evaluation (IE). The IE evaluates the causal effect of the CPBF interventions on maternal and child health outputs and outcomes.Analysis of the IE data that assessed the program impact compares outcomes in sectors implementing the three different interventions and a comparison group of sectors not implementing any of the interventions. The IE relies on baseline (Q1-Q2 2010) and follow up (Q4 2013-Q2 2014) data collection, consisting of household, CHW and CHW cooperative surveys. A health facility assessment was conducted at the follow up survey.

The endline survey for the impact evaluation was fielded from November 2013 to June 2014. The University of Rwanda College of Medicine and Health Sciences School of Public Health (UR-CMHS-SPH) managed all activities related to data collection and entry. The baseline survey questionnaires were adapted to account for the modification to the sample described in the previous chapter. In addition, modules asking about the experience with the CPBF program have been added. Because the baseline survey did not include the health facility assessment, the relevant questionnaires were created by adapting the Health Results Innovation Trust Fund (HRITF) samples. Apart from the health facility assessment that was conducted in French, all other interviews were conducted in Kinyarwanda.

Interviews with the CHWs and presidents of the cooperatives were conducted at the health centers and conducted jointly with the health facility assessment. The in-charge of each health center and the center's head of community health were informed two weeks prior to the visit. The CHWs in charge of MNH in the sample villages were asked to be present at the health center at the day of the visit. The head of community health was in charge of contacting the CHWs. Each survey team was composed of 3 enumerators led by a team leader. During a one-day visit, a team fielded the health facility questionnaire with the in-charge of the health center or the deputy, the CHW cooperative questionnaire with the cooperative's president in addition to interviews with providers, patients and CHWs. 2220 CHWs were successfully interviewed in endline out of the target of 2376. This is a response rate of 93%. A response analysis was performed to test whether assignment to a specific treatment arm affected the propensity to comply with the endline survey. The results indicate that response is not significantly correlated with the introduced interventions.

The endline survey also included a health facility assessment for health centers containing interviews of facility in-charges and health providers as well as exit interviews with patients visiting the health center.

Geographic coverage

198 sectors (sub districts) in 19 districts in 4 provinces

Analysis unit

Community health workers; cooperatives of community health workers; health centers

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling strategy required several stages.

Stage 1: Identify 200 eligible sectors and randomly assign 50 to each of the four study arms In order to randomly assign 50 sectors to each of the four study arms, the evaluation team used available data from the MoH Community Health Desk to meet the following objectives: 1. Forcibly exclude 30 Vision Umurenge Program (VUP) sectors. These 30 sectors were not included in the random assignment, as they were implementing the demand-side intervention prior to the launch of the study. For this reason, these 30 sectors are considered phase 0 of the CPBF project and are not included in the impact evaluation. 2. Exclude all sectors with no health center. Due to operational complexity for the demand-side intervention, the sample of sectors was restricted to those sectors with at least one health center/CHW cooperative. 3. Minimize geographic disbursement in order to minimize costs. The 18 districts from the 2006-2008 health center level PBF impact evaluation were included in order to reduce costs and use the data collected during that first impact evaluation on those districts in the future. An additional district was required after randomization in order to meet sample size requirements. The Gicumbi district met the required number of sectors and was geographically close to the Northern districts included in the sample. This resulted in a final sample of 223 sectors. In order to randomly assign 50 sectors to each study arm, the team blocked the sectors by a) district and b) poverty ranking. Within each block, the sectors were randomly assigned a number 1, 2, 3 or 4. In study arms 1, 2 and 3, there were incomplete blocks, and replacement sectors were needed for those study arms. Once the sectors were randomly assigned to each study arm, the evaluation team conducted difference in means tests between each treatment group and the comparison group, as well as the combination of all treatment groups and the comparison group, on the following variables: • VUP poverty ranking (to validate the blocking) • The sector’s health center is classified as “Public” or “Agrée” (Government or non-for-profit faith-based facilities) • Sector Population: Male/Female There were no statistical differences between the treatment and control groups based on these variables.

Stage 2: Identify one CHW cooperative per sector On average, each sector has one health center with a corresponding CHW cooperative. The CHW cooperative leader was interviewed.

Stage 3: Randomly select 12 villages per sector Ex-ante power calculations demonstrated that for each sector, the team required 12 households. The team first needed to identify the 12 villages that households would be selected from for each sector. Using administrative data, three cells were randomly selected for each sector from the total sample of cells. For each of the total 600 cells, four villages were randomly selected from the total number of villages, resulting in 12 villages per sector and a total number of 2400 households.

Community Health Workers The research team decided to only interview the community health worker in charge of maternal and neonatal heath in each village in the endline survey to release resources for the doubling of the household survey. It is important to note that the number of CHWs included in the baseline survey was not based on a power analysis. In addition, most of the targeted indicators are related to the work of these community health workers.

Community Health Cooperatives The endline survey was planned to conduct a cooperative survey in each of the cooperatives covered by the baseline survey.

Health Facilities Unlike the baseline survey, the endline survey covered also the health facilities associated with each community health workers cooperative. The health facility survey included: • A health facility assessment completed by interviewing the head or deputy head of the health center. • A health worker survey: in each health center, the research team selected for interview two health workers providing the target services on the day of the survey (one for antenatal care and one for child curative care services). A set of vignettes were administered to the provider to measure their practical knowledge on the specific service provided.

Patient exit interviews At the end of the visit with the above mentioned providers, six patients in total per health center were interviewed on the day of the survey (three patients who received antenatal and three patients who received child care services) to assess the competence of the providers and the quality of care received.

Sampling deviation

According to the study design, the survey should have covered 200 sectors, 50 for each study arm. Of the 200 originally selected sectors, 12 did not meet the criteria of having a health center with an active CHW cooperative. While replacement sectors were assigned to the 3 treatment groups, there was no replacement sector assigned for the control group. Therefore, one sector of the control group has been dropped from the sample without being replaced. Another sector assigned to the control group has been wrongly coded in the data and subsequently also dropped from the sample. As a result, the final sample covered 198 sectors.

Mode of data