Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23870717›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2013

Protocol for the evaluation of a pay for performance programme in Pwani region in Tanzania: a controlled before and after study.

Josephine Borghi, Iddy Mayumana, Irene Mashasi, Peter Binyaruka, Edith Patouillard, Ikunda Njau, Ottar Maestad, Salim Abdulla, Masuma Mamdani

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Josephine BorghiDepartment of Global Health and Developmnent, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H NSH, UK. jo.borghi@lshtm.ac.uk
Iddy Mayumana
Irene Mashasi
Peter Binyaruka
Edith Patouillard
Ikunda Njau
Ottar Maestad
Salim Abdulla
Masuma Mamdani
Ifakara Health Institute · TZLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBChr. Michelsen Institute · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of supply-side incentives to increase health service utilisation and enhance service quality is gaining momentum in many low- and middle-income countries. However, there is a paucity of evidence on the impact of such schemes, their cost-effectiveness, and the process of implementation and potential unintended consequences in these settings. A pay for performance (P4P) programme was introduced in Pwani region of Tanzania in 2011. METHODS/

designAn evaluation of the programme will be carried out to inform a potential national rollout. A controlled before and after study will examine the effect of the P4P programme on quality, coverage, and cost of targeted maternal and newborn healthcare services and selected non-targeted services at facilities in Tanzania. Data will be collected from a survey of 75 facilities, 750 patients exiting consultations, over 75 health workers, and 1,500 households of women who delivered in the previous year, in all seven intervention districts. Data will be collected from the same number of respondents in four control districts. A process evaluation will examine: whether the P4P programme was implemented as planned; stakeholder response to the programme and its acceptability; and implementation bottlenecks and facilitating factors. Three rounds of process data collection will be conducted including a review of available P4P documents, individual interviews and focus group discussions with key informants working at facility and district level in five of the intervention districts, and at the regional and national levels. An economic evaluation will measure the cost-effectiveness of P4P relative to current practice from a societal perspective. DISCUSSION: This evaluation will contribute robust evidence on the impact and cost-effectiveness of P4P in a low income setting, as well as generate a better understanding of the feasibility of integrating complex intervention packages like P4P within health systems in resource poor settings.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansInfant CareInfant, NewbornMaternal Health ServicesProgram EvaluationReimbursement, IncentiveTanzania

Identifiers

PMID23870717
PMCPMC3724689
OpenAlexW2133881081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.