Search results

This study examines key adaptations that occurred in the Zimbabwean Results-Based Financing (RBF) programme between 2010 and 2017, locating the endogenous and exogenous factors that required adaptive response and the processes from which changes were made.

The study is based on a desk review and thematic analysis of 64 policy and academic literatures supplemented with 28 multi-stakeholder interviews.

The programme experienced substantive adaption between 2010 and 2017, demonstrating a significant level of responsiveness towards increasing efficiency as well as to respond to unforeseen factors that undermined RBF mechanisms. The programme was adaptive due to its phased design, which allowed revision competencies and responsive adaptation, which provide useful insights for other low-and-middle income countries (LMICs) settings where graduated scale-up might better meet contextualised needs. However, exogenous factors were often not systematically examined or reported in RBF evaluations, demonstrating that adaptation could have been better anticipated, planned, reported and communicated, especially if RBF is to be a more effective health system reform tool.

RBF is an increasingly popular health system reform tool in LMICs. However, there are questions about how exogenous factors affect RBF performance and acknowledgement that unforeseen endogenous programme design and implementation factors also greatly affect the performance of RBF. As a result, a better understanding of how RBF operates and adapts to programme level (endogenous) and exogenous (external) factors in LMICs is necessary.

The use of pay for performance (P4P) as an instrument to incentivise quality improvements in health care is at a crossroads in high-income countries but has remained a commonly used tool in low- and middle-income countries. The authors aimed to take stock of the evidence on effectiveness and design from across income settings to reveal insights for the future design of performance payment across income contexts.

The authors identified Cochrane literature reviews of the use of P4P in health care in any income setting, tracked the development in the quantity and quality of evidence over time, and compared the incentive design features used across high-income countries compared to low- and middle-income countries.

The quantity and quality of the evidence base have grown over time but can still be improved. Scheme design varies across income settings, and although some design choices may reflect differences in context, the authors find that incentive designers in both income settings can learn from practices used in the other setting.

The research and literature on P4P in high-, low- and middle-income countries largely operate in silos. By taking stock of the evidence on P4P from across income settings, the authors are able to draw out key insights between these settings, which remain underexplored in the literature.