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: Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. The term comorbidity is also used but this is now taken to mean that there is a defined index condition with other linked conditions, for example diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It is also used when there are combinations of defined conditions that commonly co-exist, for example diabetes and depression. While this is not a new phenomenon, there is greater recognition of its impact and the importance of improving outcomes for individuals affected. Research in the area to date has focused mainly on descriptive epidemiology and impact assessment. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of health-service or patient-oriented interventions designed to improve outcomes in people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and seven other databases to 28 September 2015. We also searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field for completed or ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised clinical trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. This includes studies where participants can have combinations of any condition or have combinations of pre-specified common conditions (comorbidity), for example, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The comparison was usual care as delivered in that setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality, and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of the results where possible and carried out a narrative synthesis for the remainder of the results. We present the results in a 'Summary of findings' table and tabular format to show effect sizes across all outcome types.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 17 RCTs examining a range of complex interventions for people with multimorbidity. Nine studies focused on defined comorbid conditions with an emphasis on depression, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The remaining studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older people. In 11 studies, the predominant intervention element was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In six studies, the interventions were predominantly patient-oriented, for example, educational or self-management support-type interventions delivered directly to participants. Overall our confidence in the results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from low to high certainty. There was little or no difference in clinical outcomes (based on moderate certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved (based on high certainty evidence) and there were modest reductions in mean depression scores for the comorbidity studies that targeted participants with depression (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.63 to -0.2). There was probably a small improvement in patient-reported outcomes (moderate certainty evidence). The intervention may make little or no difference to health service use (low certainty evidence), may slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty evidence), probably slightly improves patient-related health behaviours (moderate certainty evidence), and probably improves provider behaviour in terms of prescribing behaviour and quality of care (moderate certainty evidence). Cost data were limited.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies the emerging evidence to support policy for the management of people with multimorbidity and common comorbidities in primary care and community settings. There are remaining uncertainties about the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity in general due to the relatively small number of RCTs conducted in this area to date, with mixed findings overall. It is possible that the findings may change with the inclusion of large ongoing well-organised trials in future updates. The results suggest an improvement in health outcomes if interventions can be targeted at risk factors such as depression in people with co-morbidity.
BACKGROUND: Current and expected problems such as ageing, increased prevalence of chronic conditions and multi-morbidity, increased emphasis on healthy lifestyle and prevention, and substitution for care from hospitals by care provided in the community encourage countries worldwide to develop new models of primary care delivery. Owing to the fact that many tasks do not necessarily require the knowledge and skills of a doctor, interest in using nurses to expand the capacity of the primary care workforce is increasing. Substitution of nurses for doctors is one strategy used to improve access, efficiency, and quality of care. This is the first update of the Cochrane review published in 2005., OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to investigate the impact of nurses working as substitutes for primary care doctors on:* patient outcomes;* processes of care; and* utilisation, including volume and cost., SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of the Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com), as well as MEDLINE, Ovid, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and EbscoHost (searched 20.01.2015). We searched for grey literature in the Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (21.02.2017), and we searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries (21.02.2017). We did a cited reference search for relevant studies (searched 27.01 2015) and checked reference lists of all included studies. We reran slightly revised strategies, limited to publication years between 2015 and 2017, for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and CINAHL, in March 2017, and we have added one trial to 'Studies awaiting classification'., SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials evaluating the outcomes of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. The review is limited to primary healthcare services that provide first contact and ongoing care for patients with all types of health problems, excluding mental health problems. Studies which evaluated nurses supplementing the work of primary care doctors were excluded., DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies. When feasible, we combined study results and determined an overall estimate of the effect. We evaluated other outcomes by completing a structured synthesis., MAIN RESULTS: For this review, we identified 18 randomised trials evaluating the impact of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. One study was conducted in a middle-income country, and all other studies in high-income countries. The nursing level was often unclear or varied between and even within studies. The studies looked at nurses involved in first contact care (including urgent care), ongoing care for physical complaints, and follow-up of patients with a particular chronic conditions such as diabetes. In many of the studies, nurses could get additional support or advice from a doctor. Nurse-doctor substitution for preventive services and health education in primary care has been less well studied.Study findings suggest that care delivered by nurses, compared to care delivered by doctors, probably generates similar or better health outcomes for a broad range of patient conditions (low- or moderate-certainty evidence):* Nurse-led primary care may lead to slightly fewer deaths among certain groups of patients, compared to doctor-led care. However, the results vary and it is possible that nurse-led primary care makes little or no difference to the number of deaths (low-certainty evidence). * Blood pressure outcomes are probably slightly improved in nurse-led primary care. Other clinical or health status outcomes are probably similar (moderate-certainty evidence). * Patient satisfaction is probably slightly higher in nurse-led primary care (moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life may be slightly higher (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of nurse-led care on process of care because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low. The effect of nurse-led care on utilisation of care is mixed and depends on the type of outcome. Consultations are probably longer in nurse-led primary care (moderate-certainty evidence), and numbers of attended return visits are slightly higher for nurses than for doctors (high-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference between nurses and doctors in the number of prescriptions and attendance at accident and emergency units (high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the number of tests and investigations, hospital referrals and hospital admissions between nurses and doctors (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of nurse-led care on the costs of care because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low., AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that for some ongoing and urgent physical complaints and for chronic conditions, trained nurses, such as nurse practitioners, practice nurses, and registered nurses, probably provide equal or possibly even better quality of care compared to primary care doctors, and probably achieve equal or better health outcomes for patients. Nurses probably achieve higher levels of patient satisfaction, compared to primary care doctors. Furthermore, consultation length is probably longer when nurses deliver care and the frequency of attended return visits is probably slightly higher for nurses, compared to doctors. Other utilisation outcomes are probably the same. The effects of nurse-led care on process of care and the costs of care are uncertain, and we also cannot ascertain what level of nursing education leads to the best outcomes when nurses are substituted for doctors.
BACKGROUND: Trachoma remains a major cause of avoidable blindness among underprivileged populations in many developing countries. It is estimated that about 146 million people have active trachoma and nearly six million people are blind due to complications associated with repeat infections.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of face washing promotion for the prevention of active trachoma in endemic communities.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2015), PubMed (January 1948 to January 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (accessed 10 January 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 26 January 2015.To identify further relevant trials we checked the reference lists of the included trials. Also, we used the Science Citation Index to search for references to publications that cited the trials included in the review. We contacted investigators and experts in the field to identify additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared face washing with no treatment or face washing combined with antibiotics against antibiotics alone. Trial participants were residents of endemic trachoma communities.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We contacted trial authors for additional information when needed. Two trials met our inclusion criteria; but we did not conduct meta-analysis due to methodological heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS: We included two cluster-RCTs, which provided data from 2447 participants. Both trials were conducted in areas endemic to trachoma: Northern Australia and Tanzania. The follow-up period was three months in one trial and 12 months in the other; both trials had about 90% participant follow-up at final visit. Overall the quality of the evidence is uncertain due to the trials not reporting many design methods and the differences in outcomes reported between trials.Face washing combined with topical tetracycline was compared with topical tetracycline alone in three pairs of villages in one trial. The trial found that face washing combined with topical tetracycline reduced 'severe' active trachoma compared with topical tetracycline alone at 12 months (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.97); however, the trial did not find any important difference between the intervention and control villages in reducing other types of active trachoma (adjusted OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.59). Intervention villages had a higher prevalence of clean faces than the control villages among children with severe trachoma (adjusted OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.59) and any trachoma (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72) at 12 months follow-up. The second trial compared eye washing to no treatment or to topical tetracycline alone or to a combination of eye washing and tetracycline drops in children with follicular trachoma. At three months, the trial found no evidence of benefit of eye washing alone or in combination with tetracycline eye drops in reducing follicular trachoma amongst children with follicular trachoma (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; one trial, 1143 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence from one trial that face washing combined with topical tetracycline may be effective in reducing severe active trachoma and in increasing the prevalence of clean faces at one year follow-up. Current evidence is inconclusive as to the effectiveness of face washing alone or in combination with topical tetracycline in reducing active or severe trachoma.
BACKGROUND: Trachoma is a major cause of avoidable blindness. It is responsible for about six million blind people worldwide, mostly in the poor communities of developing countries. One of the major strategies advocated for the control of the disease is the application of various environmental sanitary measures to such communities.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the effectiveness of environmental sanitary measures on the prevalence of active trachoma in endemic areas.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 9), MEDLINE (January 1950 to September 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to September 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to September 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 23 September 2011. We checked the reference list of included trials and the Science Citation Index. We also contacted agencies, experts and researchers in trachoma control.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any form of environmental hygiene measures with no measure. These hygiene measures included fly control, provision of water and health education. Participants in the trials were people normally resident in the trachoma endemic areas.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included trials. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Six trials met the inclusion criteria but we did not conduct meta-analysis due to heterogeneity of the studies.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies with a total of 12,294 participants from 79 communities. Two studies that assessed insecticide spray as a fly control measure found that trachoma is reduced by at least 55% to 61% with this measure compared to no intervention. However, another study did not find insecticide spray to be effective in reducing trachoma. One study found that another fly control measure, latrine provision, reduced trachoma by 29.5% compared to no intervention; this was, however, not statistically significantly different and findings have not been confirmed by a more recent study. Another study revealed that health education reduced the incidence of trachoma. These findings were not confirmed by a second study, however, which found that a modest health education programme with modest water supply did not reduce trachoma. However, all the studies have some methodological concerns.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence from two trials that insecticides are effective in reducing trachoma, however, this effect was not demonstrated in another trial that used insecticides. Two trials on latrine provision as a fly control measure have not demonstrated significant trachoma reduction. Health education had shown significant reduction of trachoma in one study but another study did not demonstrate similar findings. Generally there is a dearth of data to determine the effectiveness of all aspects of environmental sanitation in the control of trachoma.
BACKGROUND: Following an international push for financing reforms, many low- and middle-income countries introduced user fees to raise additional revenue for health systems. User fees are charges levied at the point of use and are supposed to help reduce ‘frivolous’ consumption of health services, increase quality of services available and, as a result, increase utilisation of services.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of introducing, removing or changing user fees to improve access to care in low-and middle-income countries
SEARCH METHODS: We searched 25 international databases, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group’s Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We also searched the websites and online resources of international agencies, organisations and universities to find relevant grey literature. We conducted the original searches between November 2005 and April 2006 and the updated search in CENTRAL (DVD-ROM 2011, Issue 1); MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid (January 25, 2011); MEDLINE, Ovid (1948 to January Week 2 2011); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2011 Week 03) and EconLit, CSA Illumina (1969 - present) on the 26th of January 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, interrupted time-series studies and controlled before-and-after studies that reported an objective measure of at least one of the following outcomes: healthcare utilisation, health expenditures, or health outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We re-analysed studies with longitudinal data. We computed price elasticities of demand for health services in controlled before-and-after studies as a standardised measure. Due to the diversity of contexts and outcome measures, we did not perform meta-analysis. Instead, we undertook a narrative summary of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies out of the 243 identified. Most of the included studies showed methodological weaknesses that hamper the strength and reliability of their findings. When fees were introduced or increased, we found the use of health services decreased significantly in most studies. Two studies found increases in health service use when quality improvements were introduced at the same time as user fees. However, these studies have a high risk of bias. We found no evidence of effects on health outcomes or health expenditure.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that reducing or removing user fees increases the utilisation of certain healthcare services. However, emerging evidence suggests that such a change may have unintended consequences on utilisation of preventive services and service quality. The review also found that introducing or increasing fees can have a negative impact on health services utilisation, although some evidence suggests that when implemented with quality improvements these interventions could be beneficial. Most of the included studies suffered from important methodological weaknesses. More rigorous research is needed to inform debates on the desirability and effects of user fees.
INTRODUCTION: Responsible governance is crucial to national development and a catalyst for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. To date, governance seems to have been a neglected issue in the field of human resources for health (HRH), which could be an important reason why HRH policy formulation and implementation is often poor. This article aims to describe how governance issues have influenced HRH policy development and to identify governance strategies that have been used, successfully or not, to improve HRH policy implementation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).
METHODS: We performed a descriptive literature review of HRH case studies which describe or evaluate a governance-related intervention at country or district level in LMIC. In order to systematically address the term 'governance' a framework was developed and governance aspects were regrouped into four dimensions: 'performance', 'equity and equality', 'partnership and participation' and 'oversight'.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In total 16 case studies were included in the review and most of the selected studies covered several governance dimensions. The dimension 'performance' covered several elements at the core of governance of HRH, decentralization being particularly prominent. Although improved equity and/or equality was, in a number of interventions, a goal, inclusiveness in policy development and fairness and transparency in policy implementation did often not seem adequate to guarantee the corresponding desirable health workforce scenario. Forms of partnership and participation described in the case studies are numerous and offer different lessons. Strikingly, in none of the articles was 'partnerships' a core focus. A common theme in the dimension of 'oversight' is local-level corruption, affecting, amongst other things, accountability and local-level trust in governance, and its cultural guises. Experiences with accountability mechanisms for HRH policy development and implementation were lacking.
CONCLUSION: This review shows that the term 'governance' is neither prominent nor frequent in recent HRH literature. It provides initial lessons regarding the influence of governance on HRH policy development and implementation. The review also shows that the evidence base needs to be improved in this field in order to better understand how governance influences HRH policy development and implementation. Tentative lessons are discussed, based on the case studies.
BACKGROUND: Primary healthcare (PHC) workers often work alone or in isolation. Healthcare managerial supervision is recommended to help assure quality; but this requires skilled supervisors and takes time and resources. It is therefore important to assess to what extent supervision is beneficial and the ways in which it can be implemented.
OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of managerial supervision of health workers to improve the quality of PHC (such as adherence to guidance or coverage of services) in low- and middle-income countries.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2011, Issue 1, part of The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 10 March 2011); MEDLINE, Ovid 1950 to March Week 1 2011 (searched 08 March 2011); EMBASE, Ovid 1980 to 2011 Week 12 (searched 08 March 2011); CINAHL, Ebsco 1981 – present (searched 10 March 2011); LILACS, VHL (searched 10 March 2011).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series studies, conducted in PHC in low- and middle-income countries. Supervision includes site visits from a central level of the health system, plus at least one supervisory activity. We excluded studies aimed solely at improving the clinical skills of PHC workers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using a predefined form and assessed for risk of bias using the EPOC risk of bias criteria. Data are presented in a narrative way without pooling the effects on the outcomes as studies and outcomes were diverse.
MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria: three compared supervision with no supervision, five compared enhanced supervision with routine supervision, and one study compared less intensive supervision with routine supervision. Most outcomes were scores relating to providers’ practice, knowledge and provider or user satisfaction. The majority of the outcomes were measured within nine months after the interventions were introduced. In two studies comparing supervision with no supervision, small benefits on provider practice and knowledge were found. For methods of enhancing supervision, we identified five studies, and two studies of frequent supportive supervision demonstrated small benefits on workers performance. The one study examining the impact of less intensive supervision found no evidence that reducing the frequency of visits had any effect on the utilisation of services. The GRADE evidence quality for all comparisons and outcomes was "low" or "very low".
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether supervision has a substantive, positive effect on the quality of primary health care in low- and middle-income countries. The long term effectiveness of supervision is unknown.
BACKGROUND There is a growing interest in the role of private health providers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Informal private providers (IPPs) provide a significant portion of health care in many LMICs, but they have not received training in allopathic medicine. Interventions have been developed to take advantage of their potential to expand access to essential health services, although their success is not well measured. This paper addresses this information gap through a review of interventions designed to improve the quality, coverage, or costs of health services provided by IPPs in LMICs. METHODS A search for published literature in the last 15 years for any intervention dealing with IPPs in a LMIC, where at least one outcome was measured, was conducted through electronic databases PubMed and Global Health, as well as Google for grey literature from the Internet. RESULTS A total of 1272 articles were retrieved, of which 70 separate studies met inclusion criteria. The majority (70%) of outcomes measured proximate indicators such as provider knowledge (61% were positive) and behaviour (56% positive). Training IPPs was the most common intervention tested (77% of studies), but the more effective strategies did not involve training alone. Interventions that changed the institutional relationships and contributed to changing the incentives and accountability environment were most successful, and often required combinations of interventions. CONCLUSION Although there are documented interventions among IPPs, there are few good quality studies. Strategies that change the market conditions for IPPs-by changing incentives and accountability-appear more likely to succeed than those that depend on building individual capacities of IPPs. Understanding the effectiveness of these and other strategies will also require more rigorous research designs that assess contextual factors and document outcomes over longer periods.
BACKGROUND: In some low- and middle-income countries, separate vertical programmes deliver specific life-saving interventions but can fragment services. Strategies to integrate services aim to bring together inputs, organisation, and delivery of particular functions to increase efficiency and people's access. We examined the evidence on the effectiveness of integration strategies at the point of delivery (sometimes termed 'linkages'), including integrated delivery of tuberculosis (TB), HIV/AIDS and reproductive health programmes.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of strategies to integrate primary health care services on healthcare delivery and health status in low- and middle-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010, Issue 3, part of the The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register (searched 15 September  2010); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to August Week 5 2010) (searched 10 September  2010); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2010 Week 35) (searched 10 September  2010); CINAHL, EBSCO (1980 to present) (searched 20 September 2010); Sociological Abstracts, CSA Illumina (1952 to current) (searched 10 September  2010); Social Services Abstracts, CSA Illumina (1979 to current) (searched 10 September  2010); POPLINE (1970 to current) (searched 10 September  2010); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Webspirs (1951 to current) (searched 01 July 2008); HealthStar (1975 to September 2005), Cab Health (1972 to 1999), and reference lists of articles. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHOLIS) library database, handsearched relevant WHO publications, and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses of integration strategies, including strengthening linkages, in primary health care services. Health services in high-income countries, private public partnerships, and hospital inpatient care were excluded as were programmes promoting the integrated management of childhood illnesses. The main outcomes were indicators of healthcare delivery, user views, and health status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The statistical results of individual studies are reported and summarised.
MAIN RESULTS: Five randomised trials and four controlled before and after studies were included. The interventions were complex.
Five studies added an additional component, or linked a new component, to an existing service, for example, adding family planning or HIV counselling and testing to routine services. The evidence from these studies indicated that adding on services probably increases service utilisation but probably does not improve health status outcomes, such as incident pregnancies.
Four studies compared integrated services to single, special services. Based on the included studies, fully integrating sexually transmitted infection (STI) and family planning, and maternal and child health services into routine care as opposed to delivering them as special 'vertical' services may decrease utilisation, client knowledge of and satisfaction with the services and may not result in any difference in health outcomes, such as child survival. Integrating HIV prevention and control at facility and community level improved the effectiveness of certain services (STI treatment in males) but resulted in no difference in health seeking behaviour, STI incidence, or HIV incidence in the population.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that 'adding on' services (or linkages) may improve the utilisation and outputs of healthcare delivery. However, there is no evidence to date that a fuller form of integration improves healthcare delivery or health status. Available evidence suggests that full integration probably decreases the knowledge and utilisation of specific services and may not result in any improvements in health status. More rigorous studies of different strategies to promote integration over a wider range of services and settings are needed. These studies should include economic evaluation and the views of clients as clients' views will influence the uptake of integration strategies at the point of delivery and the effectiveness on community health of these strategies.
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).
