ArticleBMJ global health2020
Understanding efficiency and the effect of pay-for-performance across health facilities in Tanzania.
Article in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Technical efficiency of public hospitals in east Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- The spatial effects and influencing factors of inter-provincial health resource allocation efficiency in China.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Health facility capacity and technical efficiency in the provision of adolescent sexual and reproductive health services in Niger.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Effects of Hospital Payment Reform of Government Budget Allocation and Social Health Insurance in a Pilot in China.International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
- Addressing skilled birth attendants' needs of primary healthcare facilities in Nigeria using the human resources for health solutions model.Discover health systems · 2025Review
- Health care provider payment reforms in African states of the Commonwealth-a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to implementing a single-visit, screen-and-treat approach with thermal ablation for cervical cancer prevention in Kenya.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Technical efficiency analysis of advanced medical centers in Burkina Faso.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Evidence on the effectiveness of value-based payment schemes implemented in a hospital setting: A systematic review.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Review
- Configurations associated with the efficiency of the ophthalmology departments in public hospitals of Central South China.PloS one · 2024Article
- Exploring the roles of players in strategic purchasing for healthcare in Africa-a scoping review.Health policy and planning · 2023Article
- The Core of Healthcare Efficiency: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Review on Frontier Analysis of Hospitals.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Who is paid in pay-for-performance? Inequalities in the distribution of financial bonuses amongst health centres in Zimbabwe.Health policy and planning · 2022Article
- Understanding the maternal and child health system response to payment for performance in Tanzania using a causal loop diagram approach.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2021Article
- Evaluating urban-rural access to pathology and laboratory medicine services in Tanzania.Health policy and planning · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnsuring efficient use and allocation of limited resources is crucial to achieving the UHC goal. Performance-based financing that provides financial incentives for health providers reaching predefined targets would be expected to enhance technical efficiency across facilities by promoting an output-oriented payment system. However, there is no study which has systematically assessed efficiency scores across facilities before and after the introduction of pay-for-performance (P4P). This paper seeks to fill this knowledge gap.
methodsWe used data of P4P evaluation related to healthcare inputs (staff, equipment, medicines) and outputs (outpatient consultations and institutional deliveries) from 75 health facilities implementing P4P in Pwani region, and 75 from comparison districts in Tanzania. We measured technical efficiency using Data Envelopment Analysis and obtained efficiency scores across facilities before and after P4P scheme. We analysed which factors influence technical efficiency by regressing the efficiency scores over a number of contextual factors. We also tested the impact of P4P on efficiency through a difference-in-differences regression analysis.
resultsThe overall technical efficiency scores ranged between 0.40 and 0.65 for hospitals and health centres, and around 0.20 for dispensaries. Only 21% of hospitals and health centres were efficient when outpatient consultations and deliveries were considered as output, and <3% out of all facilities were efficient when outpatient consultations only were considered as outputs. Higher efficiency scores were significantly associated with the level of care (hospital and health centre) and wealthier catchment populations. Despite no evidence of P4P effect on efficiency on average, P4P might have improved efficiency marginally among public facilities.
conclusionMost facilities were not operating at their full capacity indicating potential for improving resource usage. A better understanding of the production process at the facility level and of how different healthcare financing reforms affects efficiency is needed. Effective reforms should improve inputs, outputs but also efficiency.
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.