Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31640694›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Responding to policy makers' evaluation needs: combining experimental and quasi-experimental approaches to estimate the impact of performance based financing in Burkina Faso.

Manuela De Allegri, Julia Lohmann, Aurélia Souares, Michael Hillebrecht, Saidou Hamadou, Hervé Hien, Ousmane Haidara, Paul Jacob Robyn

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Manuela De AllegriInstitute of Global Health, Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Germany; Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. manuela.deallegri@uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8677-1337
Julia LohmannInstitute of Global Health, Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Germany; Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Aurélia SouaresInstitute of Global Health, Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Germany; Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael HillebrechtInstitute of Global Health, Medical Faculty, Heidelberg University, Germany; Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Saidou HamadouThe World Bank; Nouvelle Route Bastos B. P 1128, Yaoundé, Cameroon.
Hervé HienCentre MURAZ, 2054 Avenue Mamadou KONATE, 01 B.P. 390, Bobo-Dioulasso, 01, Burkina Faso.
Ousmane HaidaraThe World Bank; Health, Nutrition, Population Global Practice, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20433, USA.
Paul Jacob RobynThe World Bank; Health, Nutrition, Population Global Practice, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20433, USA.

Funding

World Bank Group NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe last two decades have seen a growing recognition of the need to expand the impact evaluation toolbox from an exclusive focus on randomized controlled trials to including quasi-experimental approaches. This appears to be particularly relevant when evaluation complex health interventions embedded in real-life settings often characterized by multiple research interests, limited researcher control, concurrently implemented policies and interventions, and other internal validity-threatening circumstances. To date, however, most studies described in the literature have employed either an exclusive experimental or an exclusive quasi-experimental approach.

methodsThis paper presents the case of a study design exploiting the respective advantages of both approaches by combining experimental and quasi-experimental elements to evaluate the impact of a Performance-Based Financing (PBF) intervention in Burkina Faso. Specifically, the study employed a quasi-experimental design (pretest-posttest with comparison) with a nested experimental component (randomized controlled trial). A difference-in-differences approach was used as the main analytical strategy. DISCUSSION: We aim to illustrate a way to reconcile scientific and pragmatic concerns to generate policy-relevant evidence on the intervention's impact, which is methodologically rigorous in its identification strategy but also considerate of the context within which the intervention took place. In particular, we highlight how we formulated our research questions, ultimately leading our design choices, on the basis of the knowledge needs expressed by the policy and implementing stakeholders. We discuss methodological weaknesses of the design arising from contextual constraints and the accommodation of various interests, and how we worked ex-post to address them to the best extent possible to ensure maximal accuracy and credibility of our findings. We hope that our case may be inspirational for other researchers wishing to undertake research in settings where field circumstances do not appear to be ideal for an impact evaluation.

trial registrationRegistered with RIDIE (RIDIE-STUDY-ID- 54412a964bce8 ) on 10/17/2014.

Indexed as

Burkina FasoCapitation FeeHealth Services ResearchHumansNeeds AssessmentResearch DesignBurkina FasoDifference-in-differencesPerformance-based financingQuasi-experimentRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID31640694
PMCPMC6805435

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.