↓ Skip to main content

Who benefits from increased service utilisation? Examining the distributional effects of payment for performance in Tanzania

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Who benefits from increased service utilisation? Examining the distributional effects of payment for performance in Tanzania
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0728-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Binyaruka, Bjarne Robberstad, Gaute Torsvik, Josephine Borghi

Abstract

Payment for performance (P4P) strategies, which provide financial incentives to health workers and/or facilities for reaching pre-defined performance targets, can improve healthcare utilisation and quality. P4P may also reduce inequalities in healthcare use and access by enhancing universal access to care, for example, through reducing the financial barriers to accessing care. However, P4P may also enhance inequalities in healthcare if providers cherry-pick the easier-to-reach patients to meet their performance targets. In this study, we examine the heterogeneity of P4P effects on service utilisation across population subgroups and its implications for inequalities in Tanzania. We used household data from an evaluation of a P4P programme in Tanzania. We surveyed about 3000 households with women who delivered in the last 12 months prior to the interview from seven intervention and four comparison districts in January 2012 and a similar number of households in 13 months later. The household data were used to generate the population subgroups and to measure the incentivised service utilisation outcomes. We focused on two outcomes that improved significantly under the P4P, i.e. institutional delivery rate and the uptake of antimalarials for pregnant women. We used a difference-in-differences linear regression model to estimate the effect of P4P on utilisation outcomes across the different population subgroups. P4P led to a significant increase in the rate of institutional deliveries among women in poorest and in middle wealth status households, but not among women in least poor households. However, the differential effect was marginally greater among women in the middle wealth households compared to women in the least poor households (p = 0.094). The effect of P4P on institutional deliveries was also significantly higher among women in rural districts compared to women in urban districts (p = 0.028 for differential effect), and among uninsured women than insured women (p = 0.001 for differential effect). The effect of P4P on the uptake of antimalarials was equally distributed across population subgroups. P4P can enhance equitable healthcare access and use especially when the demand-side barriers to access care such as user fees associated with drug purchase due to stock-outs have been reduced.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 17%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 42 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 15%
Social Sciences 15 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 52 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 28 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,145,417
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#788
of 1,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,328
of 441,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#25
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 441,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.