↓ Skip to main content

Does performance-based financing increase value for money in low- and middle- income countries? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 491)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
31 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Does performance-based financing increase value for money in low- and middle- income countries? A systematic review
Published in
Health Economics Review, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13561-016-0103-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Marie Turcotte-Tremblay, Jessica Spagnolo, Manuela De Allegri, Valéry Ridde

Abstract

Governments of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are widely implementing performance-based financing (PBF) to improve healthcare services. However, it is unclear whether PBF provides good value for money compared to status quo or other interventions aimed at strengthening the healthcare system in LMICs. The objective of this systematic review is to identify and synthesize the existing literature that examines whether PBF represents an efficient manner of investing resources. We considered PBF to be efficient when improved care quality or quantity was achieved with equal or lower costs, or alternatively, when the same quality of care was achieved using less financial resources. A manual search of the reference lists of two recent systematic reviews on economic evaluations of PBF was conducted to identify articles that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, a search strategy was developed with the help of a librarian. The following databases and search engines were used: PubMed, EconLit, Google Scholar and Google. Experts on economic evaluations were consulted for validation of the selected studies. A total of seven articles from five LMICs were selected for this review. We found the overall strength of the evidence to be weak. None of the articles were full economic evaluations; they did not make clear connections between the costs and effects of PBF. Only one study reported using a randomized controlled trial, but issues with the randomization procedure were reported. Important alternative interventions to strengthen the capacities of the healthcare system have not been considered. Few studies examined the costs and consequences of PBF in the long term. Important costs and consequences were omitted from the evaluations. Few LMICs are represented in the literature, despite wide implementation. Lastly, most articles had at least one author employed by an organization involved in the implementation of PBF, thereby resulting in potential conflicts of interest. Stronger empirical evidence on whether PBF represents good value for money in LMICs is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 174 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 21%
Researcher 28 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Other 10 6%
Other 36 21%
Unknown 31 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 30%
Social Sciences 25 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 15 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 6%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 39 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,110,793
of 25,257,066 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#16
of 491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,228
of 375,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,257,066 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 375,554 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.