Does dosage matter? Effects of Results-based Financing layered on top of less comprehensive direct facility financing in Tanzania
Clicks: 1
ID: 313608
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #49 of 66 articles by views in Health policy and planning
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Performance-based financing at health facility level has improved service delivery in many low- and middle-income countries. However, the high costs of implementing such schemes have prompted interest in less complex forms of direct health facility financing. This paper measures the effects of layering a full-blown performance-based financing scheme (Results-based Financing, RBF) on top of a less comprehensive direct financing scheme in Tanzania. This enables us to assess whether implementing a less comprehensive scheme exhausted the potential for financing reforms to improve service delivery, or whether there are significant gains from adding more resources and incentives to the scheme. We estimated the effects of RBF using a difference-in-differences approach. Over four years, we tracked 150 health facilities and more than 3,000 households, equally divided between eight districts that implemented both schemes and six districts that implemented only the less comprehensive scheme. Strong positive trends were observed for most outcomes in both groups of districts. At the same time, RBF had positive and statistically significant effects on 14 of 24 directly incentivized outcomes and on 22 of 47 other outcomes, including on service coverage (e.g., prenatal and vaccination services), service quality (e.g., content of care for antenatal and delivery services, drug availability, communication and responsiveness) and patient satisfaction. A negative effect was estimated for one outcome only (use of family planning method). Statistically significant effects of RBF ranged from -4.3 to 16.2 percentage points (average: 8.7 pp.). Analysis of intermediary outcomes revealed that RBF had a positive effect on health worker job satisfaction. We conclude that dosage matters: Comprehensive direct financing schemes - with more resources and incentives - can significantly improve service delivery beyond what is achieved by less comprehensive ones.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7161007275
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Eskindir Loha, Vincent Somville, Jo Borghi, Peter Binyaruka, Ottar Mæstad |
| Journal | Health policy and planning |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/heapol/czag058
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.