↓ Skip to main content

A reporting framework for describing and a typology for categorizing and analyzing the designs of health care pay for performance schemes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
A reporting framework for describing and a typology for categorizing and analyzing the designs of health care pay for performance schemes
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3479-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yewande Kofoworola Ogundeji, Trevor A. Sheldon, Alan Maynard

Abstract

Pay for Performance (P4P) has increasingly being adopted in different countries as a provider payment mechanism to improve health system performance. Evaluations of pay for performance (P4P) schemes across several countries show significant variation in effectiveness, which may be explained by differences in design. There is however no reliable framework to structure the reporting of the design or a typology to help analyse and interpret results of P4P schemes. This paper reports the development of a reporting framework and a typology of P4P schemes. P4P design features were identified from literature and then explored using relevant theories from behavioural and economic science. These design features were then combined with the help of multidimensional tables to produce a reporting framework and a typology which was tested using 74 P4P studies. The inter-rater reliability of the typology was assessed using Fleiss' Kappa. A Healthcare Incentive Scheme Reporting Framework (HISReF) was developed consisting of nine design features. This was collapsed into a typology consisting of 4 items/design features. There was good inter-rater reliability on all the four items on the typology (kappa > 0.7). The HISReF provides an important first step towards establishing a common language in which intervention designers can clearly specify the content of P4P designs. Our typology may be used to aid evidence synthesis and interpretation of results of P4P schemes.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 23%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 24 34%