↓ Skip to main content

Performance-based financing in the context of the complex remuneration of health workers: findings from a mixed-method study in rural Sierra Leone

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
Title
Performance-based financing in the context of the complex remuneration of health workers: findings from a mixed-method study in rural Sierra Leone
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1546-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Paola Bertone, Mylene Lagarde, Sophie Witter

Abstract

There is growing interest on the impact of performance-based financing (PBF) on health workers' motivation and performance. However, the literature so far tends to look at PBF payments in isolation, without reference to the overall remuneration of health workers. Taking the case of Sierra Leone, where PBF was introduced in 2011, this study investigates the absolute and relative contribution of PBF to health workers' income and explores their views on PBF bonuses, in comparison to and interaction with other incomes. The study is based on a mixed-methods research consisting in a survey and an 8-week longitudinal logbook collecting data on the incomes of primary health workers (n = 266) and 39 in-depth interviews with a subsample of the same workers, carried out in three districts of Sierra Leone (Bo, Kenema and Moyamba). Our results show that in this setting PBF contributes about 10 % of the total income of health workers. Despite this relatively low contribution, their views on the bonuses are positive, especially compared to the negative views on salary. We find that this is because PBF is seen as a complement, with less sense of entitlement compared to the official salary. Moreover, PBF has a specific role within the income utilization strategies enacted by health workers, as it provides extra money which can be used for emergencies or reinvested in income generating activities. However, implementation issues with the PBF scheme, such as delays in payment and difficulties in access, cause a series of problems that limit the motivational effects of the incentives. Overall, staff still favor salary increases over increases in PBF. The study confirms that the remuneration of health workers is complex and interrelated so that the different financial incentives cannot be examined independently from one. It also shows that the implementation of PBF schemes has an impact on the way it does or does not motivate health workers, and must be thoroughly researched in order to assess the impact of PBF.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 153 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 25%
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 36 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 12%
Social Sciences 19 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 7%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 41 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,197,744
of 25,307,332 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,714
of 8,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,175
of 373,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#64
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,307,332 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,602 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 373,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.