ArticleGlobal health action2025
Counter-verification in performance-based financing: key insights from the Côte d'Ivoire experience.
Article in Global health action, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerformance-based financing (PBF) is a key health financing reform in many sub-Saharan African countries, with verification being a critical component. Counter-verification, designed to enhance the credibility of verification, remains largely under-documented and under-researched. This study examines the counter-verification activities within Côte d'Ivoire's PBF program, providing insights into its implementation and challenges.
methodsWe performed a content analysis of 14 quarterly counter-verification reports spanning from Q4 2016 to Q3 2023, supplemented by brief, informal discussions. Using the READ approach proposed by Dalglish et al., we systematically prepared the materials, extracted and analyzed data, and distilled the findings. Our analysis focused on discrepancies between verified and counter-verified data, identifying and detailing the underlying causes of these inconsistencies.
resultsOur analysis revealed mixed results when comparing the verified and counter-verified data. While discrepancies decreased over time for some activities, others remained consistent or even worsened. The primary causes of discrepancies included inadequate record-keeping and failure to meet indicator validation criteria. Challenges in retrieving documents for counter-verification were linked to poorly managed physical and electronic archiving systems, as well as a lack of qualified personnel. Furthermore, the audit of administrative and financial procedures, especially regarding invoice issuance and the use of PBF funds, highlighted several shortcomings.
conclusionsCounter-verification is a critical component of PBF programs, designed to strengthen confidence in verifications, correct errors or weaknesses through sanctions or recommendations, and prevent misconduct by both providers and verifiers. To optimize its impact, counter-verification must be systematically integrated into the design of PBF programs.
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.