Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32264888›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2020

How are pay-for-performance schemes in healthcare designed in low- and middle-income countries? Typology and systematic literature review.

Roxanne J Kovacs, Timothy Powell-Jackson, Søren R Kristensen, Neha Singh, Josephine Borghi

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Review
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Roxanne J KovacsLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London, UK. roxanne.kovacs@lshtm.ac.uk.
Timothy Powell-JacksonLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London, UK.
Søren R KristensenImperial College London, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Global Health Innovation, London, UK.
Neha SinghLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London, UK.
Josephine BorghiLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London, UK.
Faculty of Public Health · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council ESRC/MRC/DfID/Wellcome TrustMedical Research Council MR/P014429/1Medical Research Council MR/R022828/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPay for performance (P4P) schemes provide financial incentives to health workers or facilities based on the achievement of pre-specified performance targets and have been widely implemented in health systems across low and middle-income countries (LMICs). The growing evidence base on P4P highlights that (i) there is substantial variation in the effect of P4P schemes on outcomes and (ii) there appears to be heterogeneity in incentive design. Even though scheme design is likely a key determinant of scheme effectiveness, we currently lack systematic evidence on how P4P schemes are designed in LMICs.

methodsWe develop a typology to classify the design of P4P schemes in LMICs, which highlights different design features that are a priori likely to affect the behaviour of incentivised actors. We then use results from a systematic literature review to classify and describe the design of P4P schemes that have been evaluated in LMICs. To capture academic publications, Medline, Embase, and EconLit databases were searched. To include relevant grey literature, Google Scholar, Emerald Insight, and websites of the World Bank, WHO, Cordaid, Norad, DfID, USAID and PEPFAR were searched.

resultsWe identify 41 different P4P schemes implemented in 29 LMICs. We find that there is substantial heterogeneity in the design of P4P schemes in LMICs and pinpoint precisely how scheme design varies across settings. Our results also highlight that incentive design is not adequately being reported on in the literature - with many studies failing to report key design features.

conclusionsWe encourage authors to make a greater effort to report information on P4P scheme design in the future and suggest using the typology laid out in this paper as a starting point.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesDelivery of Health CareHumansReimbursement, IncentiveFinancial incentivesHealth financingIncentive designLow and middle-income countriesPay-for-performancePerformance-based financing

Identifiers

PMID32264888
PMCPMC7137308
OpenAlexW3014230497

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.