Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of financing models in development assistance for health and the role of results-based funding approaches: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT: Over the past three decades, there has been an unprecedented growth in development assistance for health through different financing models, ranging from donations to results-based approaches, to improve health in low- and middle-income countries. Since then, the global burden of disease has started to shift. However, it is still not entirely clear what the comparative effect of the different financing models is. To assess the effect of these financing models on various healthcare targets, we systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed and gray literature. We identified 19 studies and found that results-based financing approaches have an overall positive impact on institutional delivery rates and numbers of healthcare facility visits, though this impact varies greatly by context.Donors might be better served by providing a results-based financing scheme combining demand and supply side health-related schemes. It is essential to include rigorous monitoring and evaluation strategies when designing financing models.

SUBMITTER: Mushasha R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10283263 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of financing models in development assistance for health and the role of results-based funding approaches: a scoping review.

Mushasha Rand R El Bcheraoui Charbel C

Globalization and health 20230620 1

Over the past three decades, there has been an unprecedented growth in development assistance for health through different financing models, ranging from donations to results-based approaches, to improve health in low- and middle-income countries. Since then, the global burden of disease has started to shift. However, it is still not entirely clear what the comparative effect of the different financing models is. To assess the effect of these financing models on various healthcare targets, we sy ...[more]

PMID: 37340310

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the benefits of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for advancing community outcomes are well-recognized, challenges with the uptake of EBPs are considerable. Technical assistance (TA) is a core capacity building strategy that has been widely used to support EBP implementation and other community development and improvement efforts. Yet despite growing reliance on TA, no reviews have systematically examined the evaluation of TA across varying implementation contexts and capacity building aims. This study draws on two decades of peer-reviewed publications to summarize the evidence on the evaluation and effectiveness of TA.MethodsGuided by Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage methodological framework, we used a scoping review methodology to map research on TA evaluation. We included peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2000 and 2020. Our search involved five databases: Business Source Complete, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycInfo, and PubMed.ResultsA total of 125 evaluation research studies met the study criteria. Findings indicate that publications have increased over the last two decades, signaling a growth in the recognition and reporting of TA. Technical assistance is being implemented across diverse settings, often serving socially vulnerable and under-resourced populations. Most evaluation research studies involved summative evaluations, with TA outcomes mostly reported at the organizational level. Only 5% of the studies examined sustainability of TA outcomes. This review also demonstrates that there is a lack of consistent standards regarding the definition of TA and the level of reporting across relevant TA evaluation categories (e.g., cadence of contact, and directionality).ConclusionsAdvances in the science and practice of TA hinge on understanding what aspects of TA are effective and when, how, and for whom these aspects of TA are effective. Addressing these core questions requires (i) a standard definition for TA; (ii) more robust and rigorous evaluation research designs that involve comparison groups and assessment of direct, indirect, and longitudinal outcomes; (iii) increased use of reliable and objective TA measures; and (iv) development of reporting standards. We view this scoping review as a foundation for improving the state of the science and practice of evaluating TA.

Project description:ImportanceRisk adjustment models using claims-based data are central in evaluating health care performance. Although US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) models apply well-vetted statistical approaches, recent changes in the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) coding system and advances in computational capabilities may provide an opportunity for enhancement.ObjectiveTo examine whether changes using already available data would enhance risk models and yield greater discrimination in hospital-level performance measures.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness study used ICD-9-CM codes from all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary claims for hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia among patients 65 years and older from July 1, 2013, through September 30, 2015. Changes to current CMS mortality risk models were applied incrementally to patient-level models, and the best model was tested on hospital performance measures to model 30-day mortality. Analyses were conducted from April 19, 2018, to September 19, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was all-cause death within 30 days of hospitalization for AMI, HF, or pneumonia, examined using 3 changes to current CMS mortality risk models: (1) incorporating present on admission coding to better exclude potential complications of care, (2) separating index admission diagnoses from those of the 12-month history, and (3) using ungrouped ICD-9-CM codes.ResultsThere were 361 175 hospital admissions (mean [SD] age, 78.6 [8.4] years; 189 225 [52.4%] men) for AMI, 716 790 hospital admissions (mean [SD] age, 81.1 [8.4] years; 326 825 [45.6%] men) for HF, and 988 225 hospital admissions (mean [SD] age, 80.7 [8.6] years; 460 761 [46.6%] men) for pneumonia during the study; mean 30-day mortality rates were 13.8% for AMI, 12.1% for HF, and 16.1% for pneumonia. Each change to the models was associated with incremental gains in C statistics. The best model, incorporating all changes, was associated with significantly improved patient-level C statistics, from 0.720 to 0.826 for AMI, 0.685 to 0.776 for HF, and 0.715 to 0.804 for pneumonia. Compared with current CMS models, the best model produced wider predicted probabilities with better calibration and Brier scores. Hospital risk-standardized mortality rates had wider distributions, with more hospitals identified as good or bad performance outliers.Conclusions and relevanceIncorporating present on admission coding and using ungrouped index and historical ICD-9-CM codes were associated with improved patient-level and hospital-level risk models for mortality compared with the current CMS models for all 3 conditions.

Project description:Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is a neglected area in global health financing. Despite repeated calls for greater investment, it seems that there has been little growth. We analysed trends in reported funding and activity between 2015 and 2021 using a novel real-time source of global health data, the Devex.com database, the world's largest source of funding opportunities related to international development. We performed a systematic search of the Devex.com database for HPSR-related terms with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. We included 'programs', 'tenders & grants' and 'contract awards', covering all call statuses (open, closed or forecast). Such funding opportunities were included if they were related specifically to HPSR funding or had an HPSR component; pure biomedical funding was excluded. Our findings reveal a relative neglect of HPSR, as only ∼2% of all global health funding calls included a discernible HPSR component. Despite increases in funding calls until 2019, this situation reversed in 2020, likely reflecting the redirection of resources to rapid assessments of the impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Most identified projects represented small-scale opportunities-commonly for consultancies or technical assistance. To the extent that new data were generated, these projects were either tied to a specific large intervention or were narrow in scope to meet a specific challenge-with many examples informing policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. Nearly half of advertised funding opportunities were multi-country projects, usually addressing global policy priorities like health systems strengthening or development of coordinated public health policies at a regional level. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown why investing in HPSR is more important than ever to enable the delivery of effective health interventions and avoid costly implementation failures. The evidence presented here highlights the need to scale up efforts to convince global health funders to institutionalize the inclusion of HPSR components in all funding calls.

Project description:BackgroundAddressing the social and other non-biological determinants of health largely depends on policies and programmes implemented outside the health sector. While there is growing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that tackle these upstream determinants, the health sector does not typically prioritise them. From a health perspective, they may not be cost-effective because their non-health outcomes tend to be ignored. Non-health sectors may, in turn, undervalue interventions with important co-benefits for population health, given their focus on their own sectoral objectives. The societal value of win-win interventions with impacts on multiple development goals may, therefore, be under-valued and under-resourced, as a result of siloed resource allocation mechanisms. Pooling budgets across sectors could ensure the total multi-sectoral value of these interventions is captured, and sectors' shared goals are achieved more efficiently. Under such a co-financing approach, the cost of interventions with multi-sectoral outcomes would be shared by benefiting sectors, stimulating mutually beneficial cross-sectoral investments. Leveraging funding in other sectors could off-set flat-lining global development assistance for health and optimise public spending. Although there have been experiments with such cross-sectoral co-financing in several settings, there has been limited analysis to examine these models, their performance and their institutional feasibility.AimThis study aimed to identify and characterise cross-sectoral co-financing models, their operational modalities, effectiveness, and institutional enablers and barriers.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if data was provided on interventions funded across two or more sectors, or multiple budgets. Extracted data were categorised and qualitatively coded.ResultsOf 2751 publications screened, 81 cases of co-financing were identified. Most were from high-income countries (93%), but six innovative models were found in Uganda, Brazil, El Salvador, Mozambique, Zambia, and Kenya that also included non-public and international payers. The highest number of cases involved the health (93%), social care (64%) and education (22%) sectors. Co-financing models were most often implemented with the intention of integrating services across sectors for defined target populations, although models were also found aimed at health promotion activities outside the health sector and cross-sectoral financial rewards. Interventions were either implemented and governed by a single sector or delivered in an integrated manner with cross-sectoral accountability. Resource constraints and political relevance emerged as key enablers of co-financing, while lack of clarity around the roles of different sectoral players and the objectives of the pooling were found to be barriers to success. Although rigorous impact or economic evaluations were scarce, positive process measures were frequently reported with some evidence suggesting co-financing contributed to improved outcomes.ConclusionCo-financing remains in an exploratory phase, with diverse models having been implemented across sectors and settings. By incentivising intersectoral action on structural inequities and barriers to health interventions, such a novel financing mechanism could contribute to more effective engagement of non-health sectors; to efficiency gains in the financing of universal health coverage; and to simultaneously achieving health and other well-being related sustainable development goals.

Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated growing research on treatment options. We aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of studies evaluating COVID-19 treatment.DesignRapid scoping review DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and biorxiv/medrxiv from inception to 15 May 2021.SettingHospital and community care.ParticipantsCOVID-19 patients of all ages.InterventionsCOVID-19 treatment.ResultsThe literature search identified 616 relevant primary studies of which 188 were randomised controlled trials and 299 relevant evidence syntheses. The studies and evidence syntheses were conducted in 51 and 39 countries, respectively.Most studies enrolled patients admitted to acute care hospitals (84%), included on average 169 participants, with an average age of 60 years, study duration of 28 days, number of effect outcomes of four and number of harm outcomes of one. The most common primary outcome was death (32%).The included studies evaluated 214 treatment options. The most common treatments were tocilizumab (11%), hydroxychloroquine (9%) and convalescent plasma (7%). The most common therapeutic categories were non-steroidal immunosuppressants (18%), steroids (15%) and antivirals (14%). The most common therapeutic categories involving multiple drugs were antimalarials/antibiotics (16%), steroids/non-steroidal immunosuppressants (9%) and antimalarials/antivirals/antivirals (7%). The most common treatments evaluated in systematic reviews were hydroxychloroquine (11%), remdesivir (8%), tocilizumab (7%) and steroids (7%).The evaluated treatment was in favour 50% and 36% of the evaluations, according to the conclusion of the authors of primary studies and evidence syntheses, respectively.ConclusionsThis rapid scoping review characterised a growing body of comparative-effectiveness primary studies and evidence syntheses. The results suggest future studies should focus on children, elderly ≥65 years of age, patients with mild symptoms, outpatient treatment, multimechanism therapies, harms and active comparators. The results also suggest that future living evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis would provide additional information for decision-makers on managing COVID-19.

Project description:SignificancePrior research suggests that Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) for coalition support compared with Resources for Services (RS) for program technical assistance to implement depression quality improvement programs improves 6- and 12-month client mental-health related quality of life (MHRQL); however, effects for clients with multiple chronic medical conditions (MCC) are unknown.ObjectiveTo explore effectiveness of CEP vs RS in MCC and non-MCC subgroups.DesignSecondary analyses of a cluster-randomized trial.Setting93 health care and community-based programs in two neighborhoods.ParticipantsOf 4,440 clients screened, 1,322 depressed (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ8) provided contact information, 1,246 enrolled and 1,018 (548 with ≥3 MCC) completed baseline, 6- or 12-month surveys.InterventionCEP or RS for implementing depression quality improvement programs.Outcomes and analysesPrimary: depression (PHQ9 <10), poor MHRQL (Short Form Health Survey, SF-12<40); Secondary: mental wellness, good physical health, behavioral health hospitalization, chronic homelessness risk, work/workloss days, services use at 6 and 12 months. End-point regressions were used to estimate intervention effects on outcomes for subgroups with ≥3 MCC, non-MCC, and intervention-by-MCC interactions (exploratory).ResultsAmong MCC clients at 6 months, CEP vs RS lowered likelihoods of depression and poor MHRQL; increased likelihood of mental wellness; reduced work-loss days among employed and likelihoods of ≥4 behavioral-health hospitalization nights and chronic homelessness risk, while increasing faith-based and park community center depression services; and at 12 months, likelihood of good physical health and park community center depression services use (each P<.05). There were no significant interactions or primary outcome effects for non-MCC.ConclusionsCEP was more effective than RS in improving 6-month primary outcomes among depressed MCC clients, without significant interactions.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of financing models in development assistance for health and the role of results-based funding approaches: a scoping review.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of financing models in development assistance for health and the role of results-based funding approaches: a scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets