↓ Skip to main content

A study on the implementation fidelity of the performance-based financing policy in Burkina Faso after 12 months

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Public Health, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
A study on the implementation fidelity of the performance-based financing policy in Burkina Faso after 12 months
Published in
Archives of Public Health, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13690-017-0250-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oriane Bodson, Ahmed Barro, Anne-Marie Turcotte-Tremblay, Nestor Zanté, Paul-André Somé, Valéry Ridde

Abstract

Performance-based financing (PBF) in the health sector has recently gained momentum in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) as one of the ways forward for achieving Universal Health Coverage. The major principle underlying PBF is that health centers are remunerated based on the quantity and quality of services they provide. PBF has been operating in Burkina Faso since 2011, and as a pilot project since 2014 in 15 health districts randomly assigned into four different models, before an eventual scale-up. Despite the need for expeditious documentation of the impact of PBF, caution is advised to avoid adopting hasty conclusions. Above all, it is crucial to understand why and how an impact is produced or not. Our implementation fidelity study approached this inquiry by comparing, after 12 months of operation, the activities implemented against what was planned initially and will make it possible later to establish links with the policy's impacts. Our study compared, in 21 health centers from three health districts, the implementation of activities that were core to the process in terms of content, coverage, and temporality. Data were collected through document analysis, as well as from individual interviews and focus groups with key informants. In the first year of implementation, solid foundations were put in place for the intervention. Even so, implementation deficiencies and delays were observed with respect to certain performance auditing procedures, as well as in payments of PBF subsidies, which compromised the incentive-based rationale to some extent. Over next months, efforts should be made to adjust the intervention more closely to context and to the original planning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 24%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 18%
Social Sciences 13 18%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,872,286
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Public Health
#64
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,469
of 450,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Public Health
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.