Paying for Performance to Improve the Delivery and Uptake of Family Planning in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Effects of Performance-Based Financing on Availability, Quality, and Use of Family Planning Services in the Democratic Republic of Congo: An Impact Evaluation

Access to high-quality family planning services remains limited in many low- and middle-income countries, resulting in a high burden of unintended pregnancies and adverse health outcomes. We used data from a large randomized controlled trial in the Democratic Republic of Congo to test whether performance-based financing (PBF) can increase the availability, quality, and use of family planning services. Starting at the end of 2016, 30 health zones were randomly assigned to a PBF program, in which health facilities received financing conditional on the quantity and quality of offered services. Twenty-eight health zones were assigned to a control group in which health facilities received unconditional financing of a similar magnitude. Follow-up data collection took place in 2021-2022 and included 346 health facility assessments, 476 direct clinical observations of family planning consultations, and 9,585 household surveys. Findings from multivariable regression models show that the PBF program had strong positive impacts on the availability and quality of family planning services. Specifically, the program increased the likelihood that health facilities offered any family planning services by 20 percentage points and increased the likelihood that health facilities had contraceptive pills, injectables, and implants available by 23, 24, and 20 percentage points, respectively. The program also improved the process quality of family planning consultations by 0.59 standard deviations. Despite these improvements, and in addition to reductions in service fees, the program had a modest impact on contraceptive use, increasing the modern method use among sexually active women of reproductive age by 4 percentage points (equivalent to a 37 percent increase), with no significant impact on adolescent contraceptive use. These results suggest that although PBF can be an effective approach for improving the supply of family planning services, complementary demand-side interventions are likely needed in a setting with very low baseline utilization.

Can payment by results ensure equitable access to contraceptive services? a qualitative case study

BACKGROUND

The Leave No One Behind (LNOB) agenda compels sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) implementers to focus on the multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination and inequalities. One strategy to address these is Payment by Results (PbR). Using the Women's Integrated Sexual Health (WISH) programme as a case study, this paper examines if and how PbR can ensure equitable reach and impact.

METHODS

Given the complexity of PbR mechanisms, a theory-based approach was used in the design and analysis of this evaluation, drawing on four case studies. These were conducted by reviewing global and national programme data and by interviewing 50 WISH partner staff at national level and WISH programme staff at global and regional levels.

RESULTS

The case studies found that inclusion of equity-based indicators in the PbR mechanism had demonstrable effects on people's incentives, on how systems work, and on modes of working. The WISH programme was successful in achieving its desired programme indicators. The use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) clearly incentivised several strategies for service providers to innovate and reach adolescents and people living in poverty. However, there were trade-offs between performance indicators that increased coverage and others that increased equitable access, as well as several systemic challenges that limited the possible incentive effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PbR KPIs incentivised several strategies to reach adolescents and people living in poverty. However, the use of global indicators was too simplistic, resulting in several methodological issues.

Interventions to support contraceptive choice and use: a global systematic map of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

To review the highest level of available evidence, a systematic map identified systematic reviews that evaluated the effectiveness of interventions to improve contraception choice and increase contraception use.

METHODS

Systematic reviews published since 2000 were identified from searches of nine databases. Data were extracted using a coding tool developed for this systematic map. Methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2 criteria.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

Fifty systematic reviews reported evaluations of interventions for contraception choice and use addressing three domains (individual, couples, community); Meta-analyses in 11 of the reviews mostly addressed interventions for individuals. We identified 26 reviews covering High Income Countries, 12 reviews covering Low Middle-Income Countries and the rest a mix of both. Most reviews (15) focussed on psychosocial interventions, followed by incentives (6) and m-health interventions (6). The strongest evidence from meta-analyses is for the effectiveness of motivational interviewing, contraceptive counselling, psychosocial interventions, school-based education, and interventions promoting contraceptive access, demand-generation interventions (community and facility based, financial mechanisms and mass media), and mobile phone message interventions. Even in resource constrained settings, community-based interventions can increase contraceptive use. There are gaps in the evidence on interventions for contraception choice and use, and limitations in study designs and lack of representativeness. Most approaches focus on individual women rather than couples or wider socio-cultural influences on contraception and fertility. This review identifies interventions which work to increase contraception choice and use, and these could be implemented in school, healthcare or community settings.

Impact of social protection on gender equality in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of reviews

Background

More than half of the global population is not effectively covered by any type of social protection benefit and women's coverage lags behind. Most girls and boys living in low-resource settings have no effective social protection coverage. Interest in these essential programmes in low and middle-income settings is rising and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic the value of social protection for all has been undoubtedly confirmed. However, evidence on whether the impact of different social protection programmes (social assistance, social insurance and social care services and labour market programmes) differs by gender has not been consistently analysed. Evidence is needed on the structural and contextual factors that determine differential impacts. Questions remain as to whether programme outcomes vary according to intervention implementation and design.

Objectives

This systematic review aims to collect, appraise, and synthesise the evidence from available systematic reviews on the differential gender impacts of social protection programmes in low and middle-income countries. It answers the following questions: 1.What is known from systematic reviews on the gender-differentiated impacts of social protection programmes in low and middle-income countries?2.What is known from systematic reviews about the factors that determine these gender-differentiated impacts?3.What is known from existing systematic reviews about design and implementation features of social protection programmes and their association with gender outcomes?

Search Methods

We searched for published and grey literature from 19 bibliographic databases and libraries. The search techniques used were subject searching, reference list checking, citation searching and expert consultations. All searches were conducted between 10 February and 1 March 2021 to retrieve systematic reviews published within the last 10 years with no language restrictions.

Selection Criteria

We included systematic reviews that synthesised evidence from qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies and analysed the outcomes of social protection programmes on women, men, girls, and boys with no age restrictions. The reviews included investigated one or more types of social protection programmes in low and middle-income countries. We included systematic reviews that investigated the effects of social protection interventions on any outcomes within any of the following six core outcome areas of gender equality: economic security and empowerment, health, education, mental health and psychosocial wellbeing, safety and protection and voice and agency.

Data Collection and Analysis

A total of 6265 records were identified. After removing duplicates, 5250 records were screened independently and simultaneously by two reviewers based on title and abstract and 298 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Another 48 records, identified through the initial scoping exercise, consultations with experts and citation searching, were also screened. The review includes 70 high to moderate quality systematic reviews, representing a total of 3289 studies from 121 countries. We extracted data on the following areas of interest: population, intervention, methodology, quality appraisal, and findings for each research question. We also extracted the pooled effect sizes of gender equality outcomes of meta-analyses. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed, and framework synthesis was used as the synthesis method. To estimate the degree of overlap, we created citation matrices and calculated the corrected covered area.

Main Results

Most reviews examined more than one type of social protection programme. The majority investigated social assistance programmes (77%, N = 54), 40% (N = 28) examined labour market programmes, 11% (N = 8) focused on social insurance interventions and 9% (N = 6) analysed social care interventions. Health was the most researched (e.g., maternal health; 70%, N = 49) outcome area, followed by economic security and empowerment (e.g., savings; 39%, N = 27) and education (e.g., school enrolment and attendance; 24%, N = 17). Five key findings were consistent across intervention and outcomes areas: (1) Although pre-existing gender differences should be considered, social protection programmes tend to report higher impacts on women and girls in comparison to men and boys; (2) Women are more likely to save, invest and share the benefits of social protection but lack of family support is a key barrier to their participation and retention in programmes; (3) Social protection programmes with explicit objectives tend to demonstrate higher effects in comparison to social protection programmes without broad objectives; (4) While no reviews point to negative impacts of social protection programmes on women or men, adverse and unintended outcomes have been attributed to design and implementation features. However, there are no one-size-fits-all approaches to design and implementation of social protection programmes and these features need to be gender-responsive and adapted; and (5) Direct investment in individuals and families' needs to be accompanied by efforts to strengthen health, education, and child protection systems. Social assistance programmes may increase labour participation, savings, investments, the utilisation of health care services and contraception use among women, school enrolment among boys and girls and school attendance among girls. They reduce unintended pregnancies among young women, risky sexual behaviour, and symptoms of sexually transmitted infections among women. Social insurance programmes increase the utilisation of sexual, reproductive, and maternal health services, and knowledge of reproductive health; improve changes in attitudes towards family planning; increase rates of inclusive and early initiation of breastfeeding and decrease poor physical wellbeing among mothers. Labour market programmes increase labour participation among women receiving benefits, savings, ownership of assets, and earning capacity among young women. They improve knowledge and attitudes towards sexually transmitted infections, increase self-reported condom use among boys and girls, increase child nutrition and overall household dietary intake, improve subjective wellbeing among women. Evidence on the impact of social care programmes on gender equality outcomes is needed.

Authors' Conclusions

Although effectiveness gaps remain, current programmatic interests are not matched by a rigorous evidence base demonstrating how to appropriately design and implement social protection interventions. Advancing current knowledge of gender-responsive social protection entails moving beyond effectiveness studies to test packages or combinations of design and implementation features that determine the impact of these interventions on gender equality. Systematic reviews investigating the impact of social care programmes, old age pensions and parental leave on gender equality outcomes in low and middle-income settings are needed. Voice and agency and mental health and psychosocial wellbeing remain under-researched gender equality outcome areas.

Paying for performance to improve the delivery of health interventions in low- and middle-income countries

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).

The Extent to Which Performance-Based Financing Programs' Operations Manuals Reflect Rights-Based Principles: Implications for Family Planning Services

Rights principles should be prioritized and more clearly stated in performance-based financing (PBF) guidance and operational documents. Additional research, including development of validated measurement metrics, is needed to help PBF programs systematically align with rights-based approaches to health care including family planning.

Recognition is growing that development programs need to be guided by rights as well as to promote, protect, and fulfill them. Drawing from a content analysis of performance-based financing (PBF) implementation manuals, we quantify the extent to which these manuals use a rights perspective to frame family planning services. PBF is an adaptable service purchasing strategy that aims to improve equity and quality of health service provision. PBF can contribute toward achieving global family planning goals and has institutional support from multiple development partners including the Global Financing Facility in support of Every Woman Every Child. A review of 23 PBF implementation manuals finds that all documents are focused largely on the implementation of quality and accountability mechanisms, but few address issues of accessibility, availability, informed choice, acceptability, and/or nondiscrimination and equity. Notably, operational inclusion of agency, autonomy, empowerment, and/or voluntarism of health care clients is absent. Based on these findings, we argue that current PBF programs incorporate some mention of rights but are not systematically aligned with a rights-based approach. If PBF programs better reflected the importance of client-centered, rights-based programming, program performance could be improved and risk of infringing rights could be reduced. Given the mixed evidence for PBF benefits and the risk of perverse incentives in earlier PBF programs that were not aligned with rights-based approaches, we argue that greater attention to the rights principles of acceptability, accessibility, availability, and quality; accountability; agency and empowerment; equity and nondiscrimination; informed choice and decision making; participation; and privacy and confidentiality would improve health service delivery and health system performance for all stakeholders with clients at the center. Based on this review, we recommend making the rights-based approach explicit in PBF; progressively operationalizing rights, drawing from local experience; validating rights-based metrics to address measurement gaps; and recognizing the economic value of aligning PBF with rights principles. Such recommendations anchor an aspirational rights agenda with a practical PBF strategy on the need and opportunity for validated metrics.

Evaluating Quality of Contraceptive Counseling: An Analysis of the Method Information Index

The Method Information Index (MII) is calculated from contraceptive users’ responses to questions regarding counseling content—whether they were informed about methods other than the one they received, told about method‐specific side effects, and advised what to do if they experienced side effects. The MII is increasingly reported in national surveys and used to track program performance, but little is known about its properties. Using additional questions, we assessed the consistency between responses and the method received in a prospective, multicountry study. We employed two definitions of consistency: (1) presence of any concordant response, and (2) absence of discordant responses. Consistency was high when asking whether users were informed about other methods and what to do about side effects. Responses were least consistent when asking whether side effects were mentioned. Adjusting for inconsistency, scores were up to 50 percent and 30 percent lower in Pakistan and Uganda, respectively, compared to unadjusted MII scores. Additional questions facilitated better understanding of counseling quality.

Rwandan stakeholder perspectives of integrated family planning and HIV services

The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand the knowledge, attitudes, and practices among key Rwandan policymakers and stakeholders related to family planning (FP) and integrated HIV/FP services. Motivational in-depth interview format and content was developed after an extensive policy review. A convenience sample of 10 high-level HIV and FP Rwandan policymakers and stakeholders completed the interview. Stakeholders demonstrated strong foundational knowledge of HIV and FP. Given the choice, stakeholders would allocate more monies to FP and less to HIV than currently distributed. Respondents felt that improved FP method knowledge, especially long-acting reversible contraception, among clients/couples and providers, was needed to address myths, misconceptions, and biases. The most often cited way to integrate HIV/FP services was development of integrated tools (eg, training materials, data collection tools, and advocacy and policy guidance). We recommend strategies for policy advancement supportive of HIV/FP service integration inclusive of couples and long-acting reversible contraception methods.

Supply-side interventions to improve health: Findings from the Salud Mesoamérica Initiative

Background

Results-based aid (RBA) is increasingly used to incentivize action in health. In Mesoamerica, the region consisting of southern Mexico and Central America, the RBA project known as the Salud Mesoamérica Initiative (SMI) was designed to target disparities in maternal and child health, focusing on the poorest 20% of the population across the region.

Methods and findings

Data were first collected in 365 intervention health facilities to establish a baseline of indicators. For the first follow-up measure, 18 to 24 months later, 368 facilities were evaluated in these same areas. At both stages, we measured a near-identical set of supply-side performance indicators in line with country-specific priorities in maternal and child health. All countries showed progress in performance indicators, although with different levels. El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama reached their 18-month targets, while the State of Chiapas in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize did not. A second follow-up measurement in Chiapas and Guatemala showed continued progress, as they achieved previously missed targets nine to 12 months later, after implementing a performance improvement plan.

Conclusions

Our findings show an initial success in the supply-side indicators of SMI. Our data suggest that the RBA approach can be a motivator to improve availability of drugs and services in poor areas. Moreover, our innovative monitoring and evaluation framework will allow health officials with limited resources to identify and target areas of greatest need.

Context matters (but how and why?) A hypothesis-led literature review of performance based financing in fragile and conflict-affected health systems

Performance-based financing (PBF) schemes have been expanding rapidly across low and middle income countries in the past decade, with considerable external financing from multilateral, bilateral and global health initiatives. Many of these countries have been fragile and conflict-affected (FCAS), but while the influence of context is acknowledged to be important to the operation of PBF, there has been little examination of how it affects adoption and implementation of PBF. This article lays out initial hypotheses about how FCAS contexts may influence the adoption, adaption, implementation and health system effects of PBF. These are then interrogated through a review of available grey and published literature (140 documents in total, covering 23 PBF schemes). We find that PBF has been more common in FCAS contexts, which were also more commonly early adopters. Very little explanation of the rationale for its adoption, in particular in relation with the contextual features, is given in programme documents. However, there are a number of factors which could explain this, including the greater role of external actors and donors, a greater openness to institutional reform, and lower levels of trust within the public system and between government and donors, all of which favour more contractual approaches. These suggest that rather than emerging despite fragility, conditions of fragility may favour the rapid emergence of PBF. We also document few emerging adaptations of PBF to humanitarian settings and limited evidence of health system effects which may be contextually driven, but these require more in-depth analysis. Another area meriting more study is the political economy of PBF and its diffusion across contexts.

Systematic Reviews of Mechanisms for Financing Family Planning: Findings, Implications, and Future Agenda

The article describes an international collaboration that systematically reviewed the evidence on financing mechanisms for family planning/contraception, assessed the strength of and summarized the evidence, identified research gaps, and proposed a new research agenda to address the gaps. The review found that the evidence base is weak owing to the paucity of studies, diversity in findings, and variations in intervention, study design, and outcome measures. Of more than 17,000 papers reviewed only 38 met the eligibility criteria. A number of general recommendations on the directions and areas of future research can be drawn. There is a strong need for more robust study designs on the effectiveness of financial incentives in family planning.

Characterizing performance improvement in primary care systems in Mesoamerica: A realist evaluation protocol

Background. Improving performance of primary care systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) may be a necessary condition for achievement of universal health coverage in the age of Sustainable Development Goals. The Salud Mesoamerica Initiative (SMI), a large-scale, multi-country program that uses supply-side financial incentives directed at the central-level of governments, and continuous, external evaluation of public, health sector performance to induce improvements in primary care performance in eight LMICs. This study protocol seeks to explain whether and how these interventions generate program effects in El Salvador and Honduras. Methods. This study presents the protocol for a study that uses a realist evaluation approach to develop a preliminary program theory that hypothesizes the interactions between context, interventions and the mechanisms that trigger outcomes. The program theory was completed through a scoping review of relevant empirical, peer-reviewed and grey literature; a sense-making workshop with program stakeholders; and content analysis of key SMI documents. The study will use a multiple case-study design with embedded units with contrasting cases. We define as a case the two primary care systems of Honduras and El Salvador, each with different context characteristics. Data will be collected through in-depth interviews with program actors and stakeholders, documentary review, and non-participatory observation. Data analysis will use inductive and deductive approaches to identify causal patterns organized as 'context, mechanism, outcome' configurations. The findings will be triangulated with existing secondary, qualitative and quantitative data sources, and contrasted against relevant theoretical literature. The study will end with a refined program theory. Findings will be published following the guidelines generated by the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses study (RAMESES II). This study will be performed contemporaneously with SMI's mid-term stage of implementation. Of the methods described, the preliminary program theory has been completed. Data collection, analysis and synthesis remain to be completed.

From Scheme to System (Part 1): Notes on Conceptual and Methodological Innovations in the Multicountry Research Program on Scaling Up Results-Based Financing in Health Systems

Abstract-This article presents conceptual and methodological developments made in analyzing the scale up of results-based financing (RBF) as part of a multicountry research program supported by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. Following a brief overview of the research process, the article proposes a new five-dimensional conceptualization of scale-up (population coverage, service coverage, health system integration, cross-sectoral diffusion, and knowledge expansion) to capture various facets of RBF scale-up. It also presents how Walt and Gilson's health policy triangle framework was modified to identify the enablers and barriers to scale-up in the country case studies included in this research program. The article then puts forth a four-phase model of scale-up, including phases of generation, adoption, institutionalization, and expansion, developed for the purpose of this research program. The article concludes by providing some lessons learned on the use of the methods and theoretical frameworks developed for this multicountry research program.