↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for the process evaluation of interventions combining performance-based financing with health equity in Burkina Faso

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Protocol for the process evaluation of interventions combining performance-based financing with health equity in Burkina Faso
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0149-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valéry Ridde, Anne-Marie Turcotte-Tremblay, Aurélia Souares, Julia Lohmann, David Zombré, Jean Louis Koulidiati, Maurice Yaogo, Hervé Hien, Matthew Hunt, Sylvie Zongo, Manuela De Allegri

Abstract

BackgroundThe low quality of healthcare and the presence of user fees in Burkina Faso contribute to low utilization of healthcare and elevated levels of mortality. To improve access to high-quality healthcare and equity, national authorities are testing different intervention arms that combine performance-based financing with community-based health insurance and pro-poor targeting. There is a need to evaluate the implementation of these unique approaches. We developed a research protocol to analyze the conditions that led to the emergence of these intervention arms, the fidelity between the activities initially planned and those conducted, the implementation and adaptation processes, the sustainability of the interventions, the possibilities for scaling them up, and their ethical implications.Methods/designThe study adopts a longitudinal multiple case study design with several embedded levels of analyses. To represent the diversity of contexts where the intervention arms are carried out, we will select three districts. Within districts, we will select both primary healthcare centers (n =18) representing different intervention arms and the district or regional hospital (n =3). We will select contrasted cases in relation to their initial performance (good, fair, poor). Over a period of 18 months, we will use quantitative and qualitative data collection and analytical tools to study these cases including in-depth interviews, participatory observation, research diaries, and questionnaires. We will give more weight to qualitative methods compared to quantitative methods.DiscussionPerformance-based financing is expanding rapidly across low- and middle-income countries. The results of this study will enable researchers and decision makers to gain a better understanding of the factors that can influence the implementation and the sustainability of complex interventions aiming to increase healthcare quality as well as equity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 176 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 26%
Researcher 30 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 13%
Librarian 7 4%
Student > Postgraduate 6 3%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 44 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 25%
Social Sciences 24 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 14 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 52 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 November 2014.
All research outputs
#14,787,304
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,536
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,529
of 256,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#55
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 256,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.