ArticleHealth policy and planning2026
Does dosage matter? Effects of results-based financing layered on top of less comprehensive direct facility financing in Tanzania.
Article in Health policy and planning, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Performance-based financing at health facility level has improved service delivery in many low- and middle-income countries. However, the high costs of implementing such schemes have prompted interest in less complex forms of direct health facility financing. This paper measures the effects of layering a full-blown performance-based financing scheme (results-based financing, RBF) on top of a less comprehensive direct financing scheme in Tanzania. This enables us to assess whether implementing a less comprehensive scheme exhausted the potential for financing reforms to improve service delivery, or whether there are significant gains from adding more resources and incentives to the scheme. We estimated the effects of RBF using a difference-in-differences approach. Over 4 years, we tracked 150 health facilities and more than 3000 households, equally divided between eight districts that implemented both schemes and six districts that implemented only the less comprehensive scheme. Strong positive trends were observed for most outcomes in both groups of districts. At the same time, RBF had positive and statistically significant effects on 14 of 24 directly incentivized outcomes and on 22 of 47 other outcomes, including on service coverage (e.g. prenatal and vaccination services), service quality (e.g. content of care for antenatal and delivery services, drug availability, communication, and responsiveness), and patient satisfaction. A negative effect was estimated for one outcome only (use of family planning method). Statistically significant effects of RBF ranged from -4.3 to 16.2 percentage points (average: 8.7 pp). Analysis of intermediary outcomes revealed that RBF had a positive effect on health worker job satisfaction. We conclude that dosage matters: comprehensive direct financing schemes-with more resources and incentives-can significantly improve service delivery beyond what is achieved by less comprehensive ones.
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.