Contribution of Results-Based Financing in Quality Improvement of Health Services at Primary Healthcare Facilities: Findings from Tanzania Star Rating Assessment

{"title":"Contribution of Results-Based Financing in Quality Improvement of Health Services at Primary Healthcare Facilities: Findings from Tanzania Star Rating Assessment","authors":"","doi":"10.33140/ijhpp.02.01.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Performance-based financing (PBF) is an important mechanism for improving the quality of health services in low- and middle- income countries. In 2014, Tanzania launched a countrywide quality approach known as Star Rating Assessment (SRA) which aims to assess the quality of healthcare service delivery in all Primary Health Care (PHC) Facilities in the country. Furthermore, by 2018 (2015-2018), the country rolled out RBF initiatives into eight regions in which PHC facilities were paid incentives based on their level of achievement in SRA assessments. This study aims to compare performance in quality between PHC facilities under RBF regions and non-RBF regions using the findings from the twophases SRA assessments; baseline (2015/16) and follow-up (2017/18). Methods: Analysis of performance of SRA indicators in the SRA service areas were identified based on the star rating tool that was used. The star rating tool had 12 service areas. For the sake of this implementation study, only seven service areas were included. The purposive sampling of the areas was used to select the areas that had direct influence of RBF in health facilities improvement. We used a t-test to determine whether there were differences in assessment star rating scores between the regions that implemented RBF and those, which did not at each assessment (both baseline and reassessment). All results were considered significant at p<0.05. The 95% Confidence Interval was also reported. Results: The mean value was found to be 61.26 among facilities exposed to RBF compared to 51.28 among those not exposed to RBF. The study showed the mean difference score to be 10.79, with a confidence interval at 95% to be -1.24 to 22.84, suggesting that there was (no) a significant difference in the facilities based on RBF exposure during baseline assessment. The p-value of 0.07 was not statistically significant. Overall, there was an increment in facilities scoring the recommended 3+stars and above by 17.39% between the assessments, the difference was significant (p=0.0001). When the regions were stratified based on RBF intervention; facilities under RBF improved in 3+ stars by 10.63% higher compared to those that were not under RBF; however, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.06) Conclusion: Improvement of Health services needs to adhere to all six WHO building blocks and not to a sole financing. The six WHO building blocks are 1. Service delivery 2. Health workforce 3. Health information systems 4. Access to essential medicines 5. Financing 6. Leadership/governance. Probably, RBF found not to influence star rating because other blocks were not considered in this intervention. We need to integrate all the six WHO building blocks whenever we want to improve health services provision.","PeriodicalId":337809,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Policy Planning","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Policy Planning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33140/ijhpp.02.01.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Performance-based financing (PBF) is an important mechanism for improving the quality of health services in low- and middle- income countries. In 2014, Tanzania launched a countrywide quality approach known as Star Rating Assessment (SRA) which aims to assess the quality of healthcare service delivery in all Primary Health Care (PHC) Facilities in the country. Furthermore, by 2018 (2015-2018), the country rolled out RBF initiatives into eight regions in which PHC facilities were paid incentives based on their level of achievement in SRA assessments. This study aims to compare performance in quality between PHC facilities under RBF regions and non-RBF regions using the findings from the twophases SRA assessments; baseline (2015/16) and follow-up (2017/18). Methods: Analysis of performance of SRA indicators in the SRA service areas were identified based on the star rating tool that was used. The star rating tool had 12 service areas. For the sake of this implementation study, only seven service areas were included. The purposive sampling of the areas was used to select the areas that had direct influence of RBF in health facilities improvement. We used a t-test to determine whether there were differences in assessment star rating scores between the regions that implemented RBF and those, which did not at each assessment (both baseline and reassessment). All results were considered significant at p<0.05. The 95% Confidence Interval was also reported. Results: The mean value was found to be 61.26 among facilities exposed to RBF compared to 51.28 among those not exposed to RBF. The study showed the mean difference score to be 10.79, with a confidence interval at 95% to be -1.24 to 22.84, suggesting that there was (no) a significant difference in the facilities based on RBF exposure during baseline assessment. The p-value of 0.07 was not statistically significant. Overall, there was an increment in facilities scoring the recommended 3+stars and above by 17.39% between the assessments, the difference was significant (p=0.0001). When the regions were stratified based on RBF intervention; facilities under RBF improved in 3+ stars by 10.63% higher compared to those that were not under RBF; however, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.06) Conclusion: Improvement of Health services needs to adhere to all six WHO building blocks and not to a sole financing. The six WHO building blocks are 1. Service delivery 2. Health workforce 3. Health information systems 4. Access to essential medicines 5. Financing 6. Leadership/governance. Probably, RBF found not to influence star rating because other blocks were not considered in this intervention. We need to integrate all the six WHO building blocks whenever we want to improve health services provision.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于成果的融资对提高初级保健设施保健服务质量的贡献:来自坦桑尼亚星级评估的结果
背景:绩效融资(PBF)是提高低收入和中等收入国家卫生服务质量的重要机制。2014年,坦桑尼亚启动了一项被称为星级评估(SRA)的全国质量方法,旨在评估该国所有初级卫生保健设施的卫生保健服务质量。此外,到2018年(2015-2018年),该国在八个地区推出了RBF倡议,根据初级保健设施在SRA评估中的成就水平向其支付奖励。本研究旨在利用两阶段SRA评估的结果,比较RBF地区和非RBF地区初级保健设施的质量表现;基线(2015/16)和随访(2017/18)。方法:根据所使用的星级评定工具,对SRA服务领域的SRA指标进行绩效分析。星级评定工具有12个服务领域。为了进行这项执行研究,只包括七个服务领域。对地区进行有目的抽样,以选择对卫生设施改善有直接影响的地区。我们使用t检验来确定在每次评估(基线和重新评估)中实施RBF的地区和未实施RBF的地区之间的评估星级评分评分是否存在差异。所有结果均以p<0.05为显著性。还报告了95%置信区间。结果:暴露于RBF的设施的平均值为61.26,未暴露于RBF的设施的平均值为51.28。研究显示,平均差异评分为10.79,95%置信区间为-1.24 ~ 22.84,表明基线评估期间,基于RBF暴露的设施存在(无)显著差异。p值为0.07,无统计学意义。总体而言,在两次评估之间,获得推荐的3+星及以上的设施增加了17.39%,差异具有统计学意义(p=0.0001)。当基于RBF干预进行区域分层时;与未采用RBF的设施相比,采用RBF的设施的3+星改善率提高了10.63%;结论:卫生服务的改善需要坚持所有世卫组织的六个基本要素,而不是单一的资助。世卫组织的六个基本要素是1。2.服务提供卫生人力。卫生信息系统获得基本药物融资6。领导/治理。可能,RBF发现没有影响星级评级,因为在这个干预中没有考虑其他块。只要我们想改善卫生服务的提供,我们就需要整合世卫组织的所有六个组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Clinical Utility of Mono-Biomarker based Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test Kits at a Military Medical Centre in Ghana: A Prospective Pilot Study Public Primary Health Facilities Autonomy: Findings from Tanzania Star Rating Assessment Trucking Universal Health Coverage in Ang'orom Ward, Teso-South Sub-County - Busia County, Kenya Issues Related to IUCD Discontinuation Rates among IUCD Users in Kembata Tembaro Zone, Southern Ethiopia What is the Impact of Alcohol Ban on Prevalence of Undertrial Prisoners of Liquor & Narcotics Drugs Related Acts Violation in Bihar - A Twelve Year (2010-2021) Comparative Cross-Sectional Study?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1