Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Pay 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. METHODS:We 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. RESULTS:We 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. CONCLUSIONS:We 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.

SUBMITTER: Kovacs RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7137308 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Kovacs Roxanne J RJ Powell-Jackson Timothy T Kristensen Søren R SR Singh Neha N Borghi Josephine J

BMC health services research 20200407 1

<h4>Background</h4>Pay 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 ...[more]

PMID: 32264888

Similar Datasets

Project description:System dynamics methods were used to explore effective implementation pathways for improving health systems performance through pay-for-performance (P4P) schemes. A causal loop diagram was developed to delineate primary causal relationships for service delivery within primary health facilities. A quantitative stock-and-flow model was developed next. The stock-and-flow model was then used to simulate the impact of various P4P implementation scenarios on quality and volume of services. Data from the Afghanistan national facility survey in 2012 was used to calibrate the model. The models show that P4P bonuses could increase health workers' motivation leading to higher levels of quality and volume of services. Gaming could reduce or even reverse this desired effect, leading to levels of quality and volume of services that are below baseline levels. Implementation issues, such as delays in the disbursement of P4P bonuses and low levels of P4P bonuses, also reduce the desired effect of P4P on quality and volume, but they do not cause the outputs to fall below baseline levels. Optimal effect of P4P on quality and volume of services is obtained when P4P bonuses are distributed per the health workers' contributions to the services that triggered the payments. Other distribution algorithms such as equal allocation or allocations proportionate to salaries resulted in quality and volume levels that were substantially lower, sometimes below baseline. The system dynamics models served to inform, with quantitative results, the theory of change underlying P4P intervention. Specific implementation strategies, such as prompt disbursement of adequate levels of performance bonus distributed per health workers' contribution to service, increase the likelihood of P4P success. Poorly designed P4P schemes, such as those without an optimal algorithm for distributing performance bonuses and adequate safeguards for gaming, can have a negative overall impact on health service delivery systems.

Project description:IntroductionPrivate sector healthcare delivery in low- and middle-income countries is sometimes argued to be more efficient, accountable, and sustainable than public sector delivery. Conversely, the public sector is often regarded as providing more equitable and evidence-based care. We performed a systematic review of research studies investigating the performance of private and public sector delivery in low- and middle-income countries.Methods and findingsPeer-reviewed studies including case studies, meta-analyses, reviews, and case-control analyses, as well as reports published by non-governmental organizations and international agencies, were systematically collected through large database searches, filtered through methodological inclusion criteria, and organized into six World Health Organization health system themes: accessibility and responsiveness; quality; outcomes; accountability, transparency, and regulation; fairness and equity; and efficiency. Of 1,178 potentially relevant unique citations, data were obtained from 102 articles describing studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Comparative cohort and cross-sectional studies suggested that providers in the private sector more frequently violated medical standards of practice and had poorer patient outcomes, but had greater reported timeliness and hospitality to patients. Reported efficiency tended to be lower in the private than in the public sector, resulting in part from perverse incentives for unnecessary testing and treatment. Public sector services experienced more limited availability of equipment, medications, and trained healthcare workers. When the definition of "private sector" included unlicensed and uncertified providers such as drug shop owners, most patients appeared to access care in the private sector; however, when unlicensed healthcare providers were excluded from the analysis, the majority of people accessed public sector care. "Competitive dynamics" for funding appeared between the two sectors, such that public funds and personnel were redirected to private sector development, followed by reductions in public sector service budgets and staff.ConclusionsStudies evaluated in this systematic review do not support the claim that the private sector is usually more efficient, accountable, or medically effective than the public sector; however, the public sector appears frequently to lack timeliness and hospitality towards patients.

Project description:Introduction:The 2018 Astana Declaration reaffirmed global commitment to primary healthcare (PHC) as a core strategy to achieve universal health coverage. To meet this potential, PHC in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) needs to be strengthened, but research is lacking and fragmented. We conducted a scoping review of the recent literature to assess the state of research on PHC in LMIC and understand where future research is most needed. Methods:Guided by the Primary Healthcare Performance Initiative (PHCPI) conceptual framework, we conducted searches of the peer-reviewed literature on PHC in LMIC published between 2010 (the publication year of the last major review of PHC in LMIC) and 2017. We also conducted country-specific searches to understand performance trajectories in 14 high-performing countries identified in the previous review. Evidence highlights and gaps for each topic area of the PHCPI framework were extracted and summarised. Results:We retrieved 5219 articles, 207 of which met final inclusion criteria. Many PHC system inputs such as payment and workforce are well-studied. A number of emerging service delivery innovations have early evidence of success but lack evidence for how to scale more broadly. Community-based PHC systems with supportive governmental policies and financing structures (public and private) consistently promote better outcomes and equity. Among the 14 highlighted countries, most maintained or improved progress in the scope of services, quality, access and financial coverage of PHC during the review time period. Conclusion:Our findings revealed a heterogeneous focus of recent literature, with ample evidence for effective PHC policies, payment and other system inputs. More variability was seen in key areas of service delivery, underscoring a need for greater emphasis on implementation science and intervention testing. Future evaluations are needed on PHC system capacities and orientation toward social accountability, innovation, management and population health in order to achieve the promise of PHC.

Project description:IntroductionCharacterisation of injury severity is an important pillar of scientific research to measure and compare the outcomes. Although majority of injury severity measures were developed in high-income countries, many have been studied in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We conducted this study to identify and characterise all injury severity measures, describe how widely and frequently they are used in trauma research from LMICs, and summarise the evidence on their performance based on empirical and theoretical validation? analysis.MethodsFirst, a list of injury measures was identified through PubMed search. Subsequently, a systematic search of PubMed, Global Health and EMBASE was undertaken on LMIC trauma literature published from January 2006 to June 2016, in order to assess the application and performance of injury severity measures to predict in-hospital mortality. Studies that applied one or more global injury severity measure(s) on all types of injuries were included, with the exception of war injuries and isolated organ injuries.ResultsOver a span of 40 years, more than 55 injury severity measures were developed. Out of 3862 non-duplicate citations, 597 studies from 54 LMICs were listed as eligible studies. Full-text review revealed 37 studies describing performance of injury severity measures for outcome prediction. Twenty-five articles from 13 LMICs assessed the validity of at least one injury severity measure for in-hospital mortality. Injury severity score was the most commonly validated measure in LMICs, with a wide range of performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) between 0.9 and 0.65). Trauma and Injury Severity Score validation studies reported AUROC between 0.80 and 0.98.ConclusionEmpirical studies from LMICs frequently use injury severity measures, however, no single injury severity measure has shown a consistent result in all settings or populations and thus warrants validation studies for the diversity of LMIC population.

Project description:Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) motivate effective measures for safeguarding public health. There is consensus that HIAs in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are lacking, but no study systematically focuses on those that have been successfully conducted across all regions of the world, nor do they highlight factors that may enable or hinder their implementation. Our objectives are to (1) systematically review, geographically map, and characterize HIA activity in LMICs; and (2) apply a process evaluation method to identify factors which are important to improve HIA implementation in LMICs. A systematic review of peer-reviewed HIAs in 156 LMICs was performed in Scopus, Medline, Web of Science, Sociological abstracts, and LILACs (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences) databases. The search used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and covered HIAs across all type of interventions, topics, and health outcomes. HIAs were included if they reported a clear intervention and health outcome to be assessed. No time restriction was applied, and grey literature was not included. The eligible studies were subjected to six process evaluation criteria. The search yielded 3178 hits and 57 studies were retained. HIAs were conducted in 26 out of 156 countries. There was an unequal distribution of HIAs across regions and within LMICs countries. The leading topics of HIA in LMICs were air pollution, development projects, and urban transport planning. Most of the HIAs reported quantitative approaches (72%), focused on air pollution (46%), appraised policies (60%), and were conducted at the city level (36%). The process evaluation showed important variations in the way HIAs have been conducted and low uniformity in the reporting of six criteria. No study reported the time, money, and staff used to perform HIAs. Only 12% of HIAs were based on participatory approaches; 92% of HIAs considered multiple outcomes; and 61% of HIAs provided recommendations and fostered cross-national collaboration. The limited transparency in process, weak participation, and inconsistent delivery of recommendations were potential limitations to HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries. Scaling and improving HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries in the upcoming years will depend on expanding geographically by increasing HIA governance, adapting models and tools in quantitative methods, and adopting better reporting practices.

Project description:BackgroundEnsuring access to essential quality health services and reducing financial hardship for all individuals regardless of their ability to pay are the main goals of universal health coverage. Various health insurance schemes have been recently implemented in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to achieve both of these objectives. We systematically reviewed all available literature to assess the extent to which current health insurance schemes truly reach the poor and underserved populations in LMICs.MethodsIn the systematic review, we searched on PubMed, Web of Science, EconLit and Google Scholar to identify eligible studies which captured health insurance enrollment information in LMICs from 2010 up to September 2019. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and appraised included studies. The primary outcome of interest was health insurance enrollment of the most vulnerable populations relative to enrollment of the best-off subgroups. We classified households both with respect to their highest educational attainment and their relative wealth and used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate average enrollment gaps.Results48 studies from 17 countries met the inclusion criteria. The average enrollment rate into health insurance schemes for vulnerable populations was 36% with an inter-quartile range of 26%. On average, across countries, households from the wealthiest subgroup had 61% higher odds (95% CI: 1.49 to 1.73) of insurance enrollment than households in the poorest group in the same country. Similarly, the most educated groups had 64% (95% CI: 1.32 to 1.95) higher odds of enrollment than the least educated groups.ConclusionThe results of this study show that despite major efforts by governments, health insurance schemes in low-and middle-income countries are generally not reaching the targeted underserved populations and predominantly supporting better-off population groups. Current health insurance designs should be carefully scrutinized, and the extent to which health insurance can be used to support the most vulnerable populations carefully re-assessed by countries, which are aiming to use health insurance schemes as means to reach their UHC goals. Furthermore, studies exploring best practices to include vulnerable groups in health insurance schemes are needed.RegistrationNot available.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets