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

Overview of attention for article published in Studies in Family Planning, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 489)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Paying for Performance to Improve the Delivery and Uptake of Family Planning in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review
Published in
Studies in Family Planning, November 2016
DOI 10.1111/sifp.12001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Blacklock, Claire, MacPepple, Ekelechi, Kunutsor, Setor, Witter, Sophie, Claire Blacklock, Ekelechi MacPepple, Setor Kunutsor, Sophie Witter

Abstract

Paying for performance is a strategy to meet the unmet need for family planning in low and middle income countries; however, rigorous evidence on effectiveness is lacking. Scientific databases and grey literature were searched from 1994 to May 2016. Thirteen studies were included. Payments were linked to units of targeted services, usually modified by quality indicators. Ancillary components and payment indicators differed between studies. Results were mixed for family planning outcome measures. Paying for performance was associated with improved modern family planning use in one study, and increased user and coverage rates in two more. Paying for performance with conditional cash transfers increased family planning use in another. One study found increased use in the upper wealth group only. However, eight studies reported no impact on modern family planning use or prevalence. Secondary outcomes of equity, financial risk protection, satisfaction, quality, and service organization were mixed. Available evidence is inconclusive and limited by the scarcity of studies and by variation in intervention, study design, and outcome measures. Further studies are warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 8%
Unknown 11 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 67%
Researcher 3 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 58%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 31 March 2017.
All research outputs
#440,867
of 7,516,779 outputs
Outputs from Studies in Family Planning
#22
of 489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,269
of 234,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Studies in Family Planning
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,516,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 489 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 234,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.