Cited by 53Global Maternal and Child HealthHealthcare Systems and ReformsEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Understanding causal pathways within health systems policy evaluation through mediation analysis: an application to payment for performance (P4P) in Tanzania

Open access
Anselmi, Laura, Binyaruka, Peter, Borghi, Josephine·2017·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of payment for performance (P4P) programmes has focused mainly on understanding contributions to health service coverage, without unpacking causal mechanisms. The overall aim of the paper is to test the causal pathways through which P4P schemes may (or may not) influence maternal care outcomes. METHODS: We used data from an evaluation of a P4P programme in Tanzania. Data were collected from a sample of 3000 women who delivered in the 12 months prior to interview and 200 health workers at 150 health facilities from seven intervention and four comparison districts in Tanzania in January 2012 and in February 2013. We applied causal mediation analysis using a linear structural equation model to identify direct and indirect effects of P4P on institutional delivery rates and on the uptake of two doses of an antimalarial drug during pregnancy. We first ran a series of linear difference-in-difference regression models to test the effect of P4P on potential mediators, which we then included in a linear difference-in-difference model evaluating the impact of P4P on the outcome. We tested the robustness of our results to unmeasured confounding using semi-parametric methods. RESULTS: P4P reduced the probability of women paying for delivery care (-4.5 percentage points) which mediates the total effect of P4P on institutional deliveries (by 48%) and on deliveries in a public health facility (by 78%). P4P reduced the stock-out rate for some essential drugs, specifically oxytocin (-36 percentage points), which mediated the total effect of P4P on institutional deliveries (by 22%) and deliveries in a public health facility (by 30%). P4P increased kindness at delivery (5 percentage points), which mediated the effect of P4P on institutional deliveries (by 48%) and on deliveries in a public health facility (by 49%). P4P increased the likelihood of supervision visits taking place within the last 90 days (18 percentage points), which mediated 15% of the total P4P effect on the uptake of two antimalarial doses during antenatal care (IPT2). Kindness during deliveries and the probability of paying out of pocket for delivery care were the mediators most robust to unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of P4P on institutional deliveries is mediated by financing and human resources factors, while uptake of antimalarials in pregnancy is mediated by governance factors. Further research is required to explore additional and more complex causal pathways.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13012-016-0540-1

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anselmi, L., Binyaruka, P., & Borghi, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Ifakara Health Institute (TZ)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Anselmi, Laura
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2017-02-02
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
10-10
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2585057317
Cited by
53
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
6.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IHI Repository (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
UK AID DFID
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Healthcare Systems and Reforms
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
performance-based pay, causal mediation analysis, institutional delivery, prenatal care, health worker supervision, health care financing, healthcare workers, health governance, Tanzania, maternal health, out-of-pocket health expenditure
MeSH terms
Antimalarials, Health Expenditures, Female, Health Policy, Humans, Maternal Health Services, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Prenatal Care, Quality of Health Care, Reimbursement, Incentive, Tanzania, Program Evaluation, Drugs, Essential, Delivery, Obstetric

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review