BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in paying for performance (P4P) as a means to align the incentives of healthcare providers with public health goals. Rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of these strategies in improving health care and health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is lacking; this is an update of the 2012 review on this topic.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of paying for performance on the provision of health care and health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 10 other databases between April and June 2018. We also searched two trial registries, websites, online resources of international agencies, organizations and universities, and contacted experts in the field. Studies identified from rerunning searches in 2020 are under 'Studies awaiting classification.'
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized or non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies, or interrupted time series studies conducted in LMICs (as defined by the World Bank in 2018). P4P refers to the transfer of money or material goods conditional on taking a measurable action or achieving a predetermined performance target. To be included, a study had to report at least one of the following outcomes: patient health outcomes, changes in targeted measures of provider performance (such as the delivery of healthcare services), unintended effects, or changes in resource use.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data as per original review protocol and narratively synthesised findings. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Given diversity and variability in intervention types, patient populations, analyses and outcome reporting, we deemed meta-analysis inappropriate. We noted the range of effects associated with P4P against each outcome of interest. Based on intervention descriptions provided in documents, we classified design schemes and explored variation in effect by scheme design.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 studies: controlled before-after studies (19), non-randomized (16) or cluster randomized trials (14); and interrupted time-series studies (9). One study included both an interrupted time series and a controlled before-after study. Studies focused on a wide range of P4P interventions, including target payments and payment for outputs as modified by quality (or quality and equity assessments). Only one study assessed results-based aid. Many schemes were funded by national governments (23 studies) with the World Bank funding most externally funded schemes (11 studies). Targeted services varied; however, most interventions focused on reproductive, maternal and child health indicators. Participants were predominantly located in public or in a mix of public, non-governmental and faith-based facilities (54 studies). P4P was assessed predominantly at health facility level, though districts and other levels were also involved. Most studies assessed the effects of P4P against a status quo control (49 studies); however, some studies assessed effects against comparator interventions (predominantly enhanced financing intended to match P4P funds (17 studies)). Four studies reported intervention effects against both comparator and status quo. Controlled before-after studies were at higher risk of bias than other study designs. However, some randomised trials were also downgraded due to risk of bias. The interrupted time-series studies provided insufficient information on other concurrent changes in the study context. P4P compared to a status quo control For health services that are specifically targeted, P4P may slightly improve health outcomes (low certainty evidence), but few studies assessed this. P4P may also improve service quality overall (low certainty evidence); and probably increases the availability of health workers, medicines and well-functioning infrastructure and equipment (moderate certainty evidence). P4P may have mixed effects on the delivery and use of services (low certainty evidence) and may have few or no distorting unintended effects on outcomes that were not targeted (low-certainty evidence), but few studies assessed these. For secondary outcomes, P4P may make little or no difference to provider absenteeism, motivation or satisfaction (low certainty evidence); but may improve patient satisfaction and acceptability (low certainty evidence); and may positively affect facility managerial autonomy (low certainty evidence). P4P probably makes little to no difference to management quality or facility governance (low certainty evidence). Impacts on equity were mixed (low certainty evidence). For health services that are untargeted, P4P probably improves some health outcomes (moderate certainty evidence); may improve the delivery, use and quality of some health services but may make little or no difference to others (low certainty evidence); and may have few or no distorting unintended effects (low certainty evidence). The effects of P4P on the availability of medicines and other resources are uncertain (very low certainty evidence). P4P compared to other strategies For health outcomes and services that are specifically targeted, P4P may make little or no difference to health outcomes (low certainty evidence), but few studies assessed this. P4P may improve service quality (low certainty evidence); and may have mixed effects on the delivery and use of health services and on the availability of equipment and medicines (low certainty evidence). For health outcomes and services that are untargeted, P4P may make little or no difference to health outcomes and to the delivery and use of health services (low certainty evidence). The effects of P4P on service quality, resource availability and unintended effects are uncertain (very low certainty evidence). Findings of subgroup analyses Results-based aid, and schemes using payment per output adjusted for service quality, appeared to yield the greatest positive effects on outcomes. However, only one study evaluated results-based aid, so the effects may be spurious. Overall, schemes adjusting both for quality of service and rewarding equitable delivery of services appeared to perform best in relation to service utilization outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base on the impacts of P4P schemes has grown considerably, with study quality gradually increasing. P4P schemes may have mixed effects on outcomes of interest, and there is high heterogeneity in the types of schemes implemented and evaluations conducted. P4P is not a uniform intervention, but rather a range of approaches. Its effects depend on the interaction of several variables, including the design of the intervention (e.g., who receives payments ), the amount of additional funding, ancillary components (such as technical support) and contextual factors (including organizational context).
BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading cause of infectious disease deaths worldwide and is the leading cause of death among people with HIV. The World Health Organization (WHO) has called for collaboration between public and private healthcare providers to maximize integration of TB/HIV services and minimize costs. We systematically reviewed published models of public-private sector diagnostic and referral services for TB/HIV co-infected patients.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Science Direct, CINAHL and Web of Science. We included studies that discussed programs that linked private and public providers for TB/HIV concurrent diagnostic and referral services and used Review Manager (Version 5.3, 2015) for meta-analysis.
RESULTS: We found 1,218 unduplicated potentially relevant articles and abstracts; three met our eligibility criteria. All three described public-private TB/HIV diagnostic/referral services with varying degrees of integration. In Kenya private practitioners were able to test for both TB and HIV and offer state-subsidized TB medication, but they could not provide state-subsidized antiretroviral therapy (ART) to co-infected patients. In India private practitioners not contractually engaged with the public sector offered TB/HIV services inconsistently and on a subjective basis. Those partnered with the state, however, could test for both TB and HIV and offer state-subsidized medications. In Nigeria some private providers had access to both state-subsidized medications and diagnostic tests; others required patients to pay out-of-pocket for testing and/or treatment. In a meta-analysis of the two quantitative reports, TB patients who sought care in the public sector were almost twice as likely to have been tested for HIV than TB patients who sought care in the private sector (risk ratio [RR] 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88-2.08). However, HIV-infected TB patients who sought care in the public sector were marginally less likely to initiate ART than TB patients who sought care from private providers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.03).
CONCLUSION: These three studies are examples of public-private TB/HIV service delivery and can potentially serve as models for integrated TB/HIV care systems. Successful public-private diagnostic and treatment services can both improve outcomes and decrease costs for patients co-infected with HIV and TB.
In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the private sector-including international donors, non-governmental organizations, for-profit providers and traditional healers-plays a significant role in health financing and delivery. The use of the private sector in furthering public health goals is increasingly common. By working with the private sector through public -: private engagement (PPE), states can harness private sector resources to further public health goals. PPE initiatives can take a variety of forms and understanding of these models is limited. This paper presents the results of a Campbell systematic literature review conducted to establish the types and the prevalence of PPE projects for health service delivery and financing in Southern Africa. PPE initiatives identified through the review were categorized according to a PPE typology. The review reveals that the full range of PPE models, eight distinct models, are utilized in the Southern African context. The distribution of the available evidence-including significant gaps in the literature-is discussed, and key considerations for researchers, implementers, and current and potential PPE partners are presented. It was found that the literature is disproportionately representative of PPE initiatives located in South Africa, and of those that involve for-profit partners and international donors. A significant gap in the literature identified through the study is the scarcity of information regarding the relationship between international donors and national governments. This information is key to strengthening these partnerships, improving partnership outcomes and capacitating recipient countries. The need for research that disaggregates PPE models and investigates PPE functioning in context is demonstrated.
BACKGROUND: Public-private mix (PPM), recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), was introduced to cope with the tuberculosis (TB) epidemic worldwide. In many developing countries, PPM has played a powerful role in TB control, while in others it has failed to meet expectations. Thus we performed a systematic review to determine the mechanisms used by global PPM programs implemented in different countries and to evaluate their performance.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of the current literature for original studies published up to May 2014 was done using electronic databases and online resources; these publications were then screened using rigorous criteria. Descriptive information and evaluative outcomes data were extracted from eligible studies for synthesis and analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 78 eligible studies were included in the final review. These assessed 48 PPM TB programs worldwide, subsequently categorized into three mechanisms based on collaborative characteristics: support, contract, and multi-partner group. Furthermore, we assessed the effectiveness of PPM programs against six health system themes, including utilization of the directly observed treatment strategy (DOTS), case detection, treatment outcomes, case management, costs, and access and equity, under the different collaborative mechanisms. Analysis of the comparative studies suggested that PPM could improve overall outcomes of a TB service, and multiple collaborative mechanisms may significantly promote case detection, treatment, referral, and service accessibility, especially in resource-limited areas. However, the less positive outcomes of several programs indicated limited funding and poor governance to be the predominant reasons.
CONCLUSIONS: PPM is a promising strategy to strengthen global TB care and control, but is affected by contextual characteristics in different areas. The scaling-up of PPM should contain essential commonalities, particularly substantial financial support and continuous material input. Additionally, it is important to improve program governance and training for the health providers involved, through integrated collaborative mechanisms.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the design, delivery and outcomes of interventions to improve adherence to treatment for paediatric tuberculosis in low- and middle-income countries and develop a contextual framework for such interventions.
METHODS: We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases for reports published between 1 January 2003 and 1 December 2013 on interventions to improve adherence to treatment for tuberculosis that included patients younger than 20 years who lived in a low- or middle-income country. For potentially relevant articles that lacked paediatric outcomes, we contacted the authors of the studies. We assessed heterogeneity and risk of bias. To evaluate treatment success - i.e. the combination of treatment completion and cure - we performed random-effects meta-analysis. We identified areas of need for improved intervention practices.
FINDINGS: We included 15 studies in 11 countries for the qualitative analysis and of these studies, 11 qualified for the meta-analysis - representing 1279 children. Of the interventions described in the 15 studies, two focused on education, one on psychosocial support, seven on care delivery, four on health systems and one on financial provisions. The children in intervention arms had higher rates of treatment success, compared with those in control groups (odds ratio: 3.02; 95% confidence interval: 2.19-4.15). Using the results of our analyses, we developed a framework around factors that promoted or threatened treatment completion.
CONCLUSION: Various interventions to improve adherence to treatment for paediatric tuberculosis appear both feasible and effective in low- and middle-income countries.
State/non-state partnerships in the health sector are of crucial importance in Nepal where partnerships between the Ministry of Health and Population (MoHP) and external actors have been fundamental to Nepal making progress in meeting millennium development goals. However, partnerships need to be strengthened. To gather information about partnerships we searched MoHP partnership evaluations as well as PubMed Central, EBSCOhost, OVIDSP, PROQUEST, Science Direct, and MedLine. We found 11 MoHP documents and 167 papers about state/non-state partnerships. Using the inclusion criteria we examined three MoHP policy documents/evaluations and 16 papers to extract information about partners, partnership health area focus, partner contributions, partnership outcomes, and partnership functioning themes. Themes about partnership functioning include the need to strengthen clarity of roles and responsibilities, strengthen leadership, as well as to ensure integration of partnership achievements systemically within the health sector. There were limitations in this review. In the academic literature there were no studies where the state/non-state partnership itself was evaluated. The focus was on the health outcomes and the partnership processes and functioning received little attention. To improve partnerships there is a serious need for research that evaluates the effectiveness of the partnership and the relationships between the partnership and the health outcomes achieved.
BACKGROUND: Franchising is an organizational form that originates from the business sector. It is increasingly used in the healthcare sector with the aim of enhancing quality and accessibility for patients, improving the efficiency and competitiveness of organizations and/or providing professionals with a supportive working environment. However, a structured overview of the scientific evidence for these claims is absent, whereas such an overview can be supportive to scholars, policy makers and franchise practitioners.
METHODS: This article provides a systematic review of literature on the outcomes of franchising in health care. Seven major databases were systematically searched. Peer-reviewed empirical journal articles focusing on the relationship between franchising and outcomes were included. Eventually, 15 articles were included and their findings were narratively synthesized. The level of evidence was rated by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation scale.
RESULTS: The review shows that outcomes of franchising in health care have primarily been evaluated in low- and middle-income countries in the reproductive health/family planning sector. Articles about high-income countries are largely absent, apart from three articles evaluating pharmacy franchises. Most studies focus on outcomes for customers/clients and less on organizations and professionals. The evidence is primarily of low quality. Based on this evidence, franchising is predominantly positively associated with client volumes, physical accessibility and some types of quality. Findings regarding utilization, customer loyalty, efficiency and results for providers are mixed.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that franchising has the potential to improve outcomes in healthcare practices, but the evidence base is yet too weak for firm conclusions. Extensive research is needed to further determine the value of healthcare franchising in various contexts. We advocate more research in other healthcare sectors in both low- and middle-income countries and high-income countries, on more types of outcomes with attention to trade-offs, and on what factors produce those outcomes.
Journal»The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review Indian literature on delays in tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis and treatment.
METHODS: We searched multiple sources for studies on delays in patients with pulmonary TB and those with chest symptoms. Studies were included if numeric data on any delay were reported. Patient delay was defined as the interval between onset of symptoms and the patient's first contact with a health care provider. Diagnostic delay was defined as the interval between the first consultation with a health care provider and diagnosis. Treatment delay was defined as the interval between diagnosis and initiation of anti-tuberculosis treatment. Total delay was defined as time interval from the onset of symptoms until treatment initiation.
RESULTS: Among 541 potential citations identified, 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. Included studies used a variety of definitions for onset of symptoms and delays. Median estimates of patient, diagnostic and treatment delay were respectively 18.4 (IQR 14.3-27.0), 31.0 (IQR 24.5-35.4) and 2.5 days (IQR 1.9-3.6) for patients with TB and those with chest symptoms combined. The median total delay was 55.3 days (IQR 46.5-61.5). About 48% of all patients first consulted private providers; an average of 2.7 health care providers were consulted before diagnosis. Number and type of provider first consulted were the most important risk factors for delay.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the need to develop novel strategies for reducing patient and diagnostic delays and engaging first-contact health care providers.
In order to inform the development of appropriate strategies to improve financial risk protection, we conducted a systematic literature review of the financial burden of tuberculosis (TB) faced by patients and affected families. The mean total costs ranged from $55 to $8198, with an unweighted average of $847. On average, 20% (range 0-62%) of the total cost was due to direct medical costs, 20% (0-84%) to direct non-medical costs, and 60% (16-94%) to income loss. Half of the total cost was incurred before TB treatment. On average, the total cost was equivalent to 58% (range 5-306%) of reported annual individual and 39% (4-148%) of reported household income. Cost as percentage of income was particularly high among poor people and those with multidrug-resistant TB. Commonly reported coping mechanisms included taking a loan and selling household items. The total cost of TB for patients can be catastrophic. Income loss often constitutes the largest financial risk for patients. Apart from ensuring that healthcare services are fairly financed and delivered in a way that minimises direct and indirect costs, there is a need to ensure that TB patients and affected families receive appropriate income replacement and other social protection interventions.
BACKGROUND: The private sector plays a large role in health services delivery in low- and middle-income countries; yet significant gaps remain in the quality and accessibility of private sector services. Clinical social franchising, which applies the commercial franchising model to achieve social goals and improve health care, is increasingly used in developing countries to respond to these limitations. Despite the growth of this approach, limited evidence documents the effect of social franchising on improving health care quality and access.
OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: We examined peer-reviewed and grey literature to evaluate the effect of social franchising on health care quality, equity, cost-effectiveness, and health outcomes. We included all studies of clinical social franchise programs located in low- and middle-income countries. We assessed study bias using the WHO-Johns Hopkins Rigour Scale and used narrative synthesis to evaluate the findings.
RESULTS: Of 113 identified articles, 23 were included in this review; these evaluated a small sample of franchises globally and focused on reproductive health franchises. Results varied widely across outcomes and programs. Social franchising was positively associated with increased client volume and client satisfaction. The findings on health care utilization and health impact were mixed; some studies find that franchises significantly outperform other models of health care, while others show franchises are equivalent to or worse than other private or public clinics. In two areas, cost-effectiveness and equity, social franchises were generally found to have poorer outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our review indicates that social franchising may strengthen some elements of private sector health care. However, gaps in the evidence remain. Additional research should include: further documentation of the effect of social franchising, evaluating the equity and cost-effectiveness of this intervention, and assessing the role of franchising within the context of the greater healthcare delivery system.
There is growing interest in paying for performance (P4P) as a means to align the incentives of healthcare providers with public health goals. Rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of these strategies in improving health care and health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is lacking; this is an update of the 2012 review on this topic.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effects of paying for performance on the provision of health care and health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 10 other databases between April and June 2018. We also searched two trial registries, websites, online resources of international agencies, organizations and universities, and contacted experts in the field. Studies identified from rerunning searches in 2020 are under 'Studies awaiting classification.'
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomized or non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies, or interrupted time series studies conducted in LMICs (as defined by the World Bank in 2018). P4P refers to the transfer of money or material goods conditional on taking a measurable action or achieving a predetermined performance target. To be included, a study had to report at least one of the following outcomes: patient health outcomes, changes in targeted measures of provider performance (such as the delivery of healthcare services), unintended effects, or changes in resource use.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We extracted data as per original review protocol and narratively synthesised findings. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Given diversity and variability in intervention types, patient populations, analyses and outcome reporting, we deemed meta-analysis inappropriate. We noted the range of effects associated with P4P against each outcome of interest. Based on intervention descriptions provided in documents, we classified design schemes and explored variation in effect by scheme design.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 59 studies: controlled before-after studies (19), non-randomized (16) or cluster randomized trials (14); and interrupted time-series studies (9). One study included both an interrupted time series and a controlled before-after study. Studies focused on a wide range of P4P interventions, including target payments and payment for outputs as modified by quality (or quality and equity assessments). Only one study assessed results-based aid. Many schemes were funded by national governments (23 studies) with the World Bank funding most externally funded schemes (11 studies). Targeted services varied; however, most interventions focused on reproductive, maternal and child health indicators. Participants were predominantly located in public or in a mix of public, non-governmental and faith-based facilities (54 studies). P4P was assessed predominantly at health facility level, though districts and other levels were also involved. Most studies assessed the effects of P4P against a status quo control (49 studies); however, some studies assessed effects against comparator interventions (predominantly enhanced financing intended to match P4P funds (17 studies)). Four studies reported intervention effects against both comparator and status quo. Controlled before-after studies were at higher risk of bias than other study designs. However, some randomised trials were also downgraded due to risk of bias. The interrupted time-series studies provided insufficient information on other concurrent changes in the study context. P4P compared to a status quo control For health services that are specifically targeted, P4P may slightly improve health outcomes (low certainty evidence), but few studies assessed this. P4P may also improve service quality overall (low certainty evidence); and probably increases the availability of health workers, medicines and well-functioning infrastructure and equipment (moderate certainty evidence). P4P may have mixed effects on the delivery and use of services (low certainty evidence) and may have few or no distorting unintended effects on outcomes that were not targeted (low-certainty evidence), but few studies assessed these. For secondary outcomes, P4P may make little or no difference to provider absenteeism, motivation or satisfaction (low certainty evidence); but may improve patient satisfaction and acceptability (low certainty evidence); and may positively affect facility managerial autonomy (low certainty evidence). P4P probably makes little to no difference to management quality or facility governance (low certainty evidence). Impacts on equity were mixed (low certainty evidence). For health services that are untargeted, P4P probably improves some health outcomes (moderate certainty evidence); may improve the delivery, use and quality of some health services but may make little or no difference to others (low certainty evidence); and may have few or no distorting unintended effects (low certainty evidence). The effects of P4P on the availability of medicines and other resources are uncertain (very low certainty evidence). P4P compared to other strategies For health outcomes and services that are specifically targeted, P4P may make little or no difference to health outcomes (low certainty evidence), but few studies assessed this. P4P may improve service quality (low certainty evidence); and may have mixed effects on the delivery and use of health services and on the availability of equipment and medicines (low certainty evidence). For health outcomes and services that are untargeted, P4P may make little or no difference to health outcomes and to the delivery and use of health services (low certainty evidence). The effects of P4P on service quality, resource availability and unintended effects are uncertain (very low certainty evidence). Findings of subgroup analyses Results-based aid, and schemes using payment per output adjusted for service quality, appeared to yield the greatest positive effects on outcomes. However, only one study evaluated results-based aid, so the effects may be spurious. Overall, schemes adjusting both for quality of service and rewarding equitable delivery of services appeared to perform best in relation to service utilization outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
The evidence base on the impacts of P4P schemes has grown considerably, with study quality gradually increasing. P4P schemes may have mixed effects on outcomes of interest, and there is high heterogeneity in the types of schemes implemented and evaluations conducted. P4P is not a uniform intervention, but rather a range of approaches. Its effects depend on the interaction of several variables, including the design of the intervention (e.g., who receives payments ), the amount of additional funding, ancillary components (such as technical support) and contextual factors (including organizational context).
