Impact evaluation for Performance-Based Financing for Health in Burkina Faso

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Robyn ◽  
Aurelia Souares
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela De Allegri ◽  
Julia Lohmann ◽  
Aurélia Souares ◽  
Michael Hillebrecht ◽  
Saidou Hamadou ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The last two decades have seen a growing recognition of the need to expand the impact evaluation toolbox from an exclusive focus on randomized controlled trials to including quasi-experimental approaches. This appears to be particularly relevant when evaluation complex health interventions embedded in real-life settings often characterized by multiple research interests, limited researcher control, concurrently implemented policies and interventions, and other internal validity-threatening circumstances. To date, however, most studies described in the literature have employed either an exclusive experimental or an exclusive quasi-experimental approach. Methods This paper presents the case of a study design exploiting the respective advantages of both approaches by combining experimental and quasi-experimental elements to evaluate the impact of a Performance-Based Financing (PBF) intervention in Burkina Faso. Specifically, the study employed a quasi-experimental design (pretest-posttest with comparison) with a nested experimental component (randomized controlled trial). A difference-in-differences approach was used as the main analytical strategy. Discussion We aim to illustrate a way to reconcile scientific and pragmatic concerns to generate policy-relevant evidence on the intervention’s impact, which is methodologically rigorous in its identification strategy but also considerate of the context within which the intervention took place. In particular, we highlight how we formulated our research questions, ultimately leading our design choices, on the basis of the knowledge needs expressed by the policy and implementing stakeholders. We discuss methodological weaknesses of the design arising from contextual constraints and the accommodation of various interests, and how we worked ex-post to address them to the best extent possible to ensure maximal accuracy and credibility of our findings. We hope that our case may be inspirational for other researchers wishing to undertake research in settings where field circumstances do not appear to be ideal for an impact evaluation. Trial registration Registered with RIDIE (RIDIE-STUDY-ID-54412a964bce8) on 10/17/2014.


10.1596/29358 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Steenland ◽  
Paul Jacob Robyn ◽  
Philippe Compaore ◽  
Moussa Kabore ◽  
Boukary Tapsoba ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Valéry Ridde ◽  
Anne-Marie Turcotte-Tremblay ◽  
Aurélia Souares ◽  
Julia Lohmann ◽  
David Zombré ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Julia Lohmann ◽  
Jean-Louis Koulidiati ◽  
Serge MA Somda ◽  
Manuela De Allegri

Background: Evidence emerging from qualitative studies suggests the existence of substantial variation in how health workers experience performance-based financing (PBF) within the same setting. To date, however, no study has quantified or systematically explored this within-setting heterogeneity. Considering that differences in health workers’ affective reactions to PBF likely constitute an important element mediating the effectiveness of PBF in improving health service delivery, systematic and tangible information will be highly valuable to policy-makers and program managers who aim to maximize positive impacts of PBF. Our study aimed at contributing to filling this gap in knowledge by quantifying health workers’ knowledge of, satisfaction with, and perceptions of PBF in Burkina Faso, and exploring factors associated with heterogeneity therein. Methods: The study employed a post-intervention cross-sectional explanatory mixed methods study design with a dominant quantitative component – a structured survey to a total of 1314 health workers from 396 intervention health facilities – and a small and focused qualitative component – key informant interviews with 5 program managers – to triangulate and further elucidate the quantitative findings. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively as well as using 3-level mixed-effects models. Qualitative data were analyzed in a largely deductive process along the quantitative variables and results. Results: Health workers were on average moderately satisfied with PBF overall, with a slight tendency towards the positive and large variation between individuals. Two-thirds of health workers did not have adequate basic knowledge of key PBF elements. Perceived fairness of the performance evaluation process, of the bonus distribution process, and satisfaction with the individual financial bonuses varied dramatically between respondents. Factors associated with heterogeneity in knowledge, satisfaction, and fairness perceptions included responsibility at the facility, general work attitudes, management factors, and training in and length of exposure to PBF. Conclusion: Findings imply that investments into staff training on PBF and manager training on organizational change processes might be beneficial to positive staff attitudes towards PBF, which in turn would likely contribute to improving the effectiveness of PBF.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document