ArticlePLOS global public health2025
A results to action framework for community verification: A case study from a performance based financing program in Zimbabwe.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Performance-based financing (PBF) is a funding strategy that pays for outcomes rather than the cost of inputs. Verification through facility records (quantity verification) and patient interviews in communities (community verification) is a known cornerstone of PBF to ensure reported results are accurate. However, the literature suggests it's common to tie payment to quantity verification results, which measure internal record alignment but do not assess the validity of records (e.g., whether records represent delivered services). We sought to understand the extent to which reported voluntary medical male circumcisions (VMMCs) in a PBF program could be verified in facility records and with patients, and if the two sources aligned at the facility-level. We performed a mixed method verification including quantity verification and community verification to verify reported results for Population Services International's VMMC program in Zimbabwe from 2016 - 2018. We also interviewed verifiers to help understand the findings and we assessed the correlation between quantity and community verification performance scores at the facility-level to see whether facilities that have strong record keeping tended to also have strong validation from patients and vice versa. Among the 36,877 VMMCs selected from DHIS2 for quantity verification, 94% of records were sufficiently complete. Among records selected for community verification, only 55% (2,010/3,676) of patients were interviewed. Among those interviewed, 17% (342/2,010) provided answers that did not plausibly match the record. Verifiers reported that some patients admitted providing incorrect contact information to avoid follow-up and most verifiers suspected staff had fabricated data. We found no correlation between performance scores at the facility-level. Overall, results from the quantity verification were not a good proxy for the community verification. Programs that pay based on facility records alone risk overpaying for services and misreporting performance. To increase the use of community verification findings, PBF programs should consider using and improving our proposed results to action framework.
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.