ArticleBMC health services research2018
A reporting framework for describing and a typology for categorizing and analyzing the designs of health care pay for performance schemes.
Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How are pay-for-performance schemes in healthcare designed in low- and middle-income countries? Typology and systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2020Pooled it
- Financial incentives and information provision for post-pandemic primary care quality recovery: a longitudinal study in Catalonia.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Physicians' incentives, patients' characteristics, and quality of care: a systematic experimental comparison of performance-pay systems.International journal of health economics and management · 2025Article
- Modelling the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of pay-for-performance programs in health care.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Does pay-for-performance design matter? Evidence from Brazil.Health policy and planning · 2024Article
- Primary care providers' preferences for pay-for-performance programs: a discrete choice experiment study in Shandong China.Human resources for health · 2024Article
- Performance bonuses and the quality of primary health care delivered by family health teams in Brazil: A difference-in-differences analysis.PLoS medicine · 2022Article
- Is value-based payment for healthcare feasible under Ghana's National Health Insurance Scheme?Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Is the evidence on the effectiveness of pay for performance schemes in healthcare changing? Evidence from a meta-regression analysis.BMC health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPay for Performance (P4P) has increasingly being adopted in different countries as a provider payment mechanism to improve health system performance. Evaluations of pay for performance (P4P) schemes across several countries show significant variation in effectiveness, which may be explained by differences in design. There is however no reliable framework to structure the reporting of the design or a typology to help analyse and interpret results of P4P schemes. This paper reports the development of a reporting framework and a typology of P4P schemes.
methodsP4P design features were identified from literature and then explored using relevant theories from behavioural and economic science. These design features were then combined with the help of multidimensional tables to produce a reporting framework and a typology which was tested using 74 P4P studies. The inter-rater reliability of the typology was assessed using Fleiss' Kappa.
resultsA Healthcare Incentive Scheme Reporting Framework (HISReF) was developed consisting of nine design features. This was collapsed into a typology consisting of 4 items/design features. There was good inter-rater reliability on all the four items on the typology (kappa > 0.7).
conclusionThe HISReF provides an important first step towards establishing a common language in which intervention designers can clearly specify the content of P4P designs. Our typology may be used to aid evidence synthesis and interpretation of results of P4P schemes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.