Skip to main content

Table 1 Study methods

From: Performance-based financing for improving HIV/AIDS service delivery: a systematic review

Author (Year) Study Setting Study Design Years Follow-up Intervention group Comparator group Outcomes Analytic Model Losses to follow-up
Attiah (2010) [34] 116 health facilities in Cote d'Ivoirea Contemporaneous observational study 2008-2009 18 months Facilities implementing PBF Different facilities not implementing PBF -% of women that received HTC
-% of pregnant women that received ARV prophylaxis
-% of infants that received ARV prophylaxis
Crude risk ratios Not relevant (HIV testing and ARV prophylaxis reported)
DeWalque (2015) [33] 24 health facilities in Rwanda Cluster randomised trial 2006-2008 14-18 months Facilities implementing PBF Different facilities not implementing PBF -% of all individuals receiving HIV testing
-% of couples receiving HIV testing
Risk ratios adjusted for year, age, gender, years of schooling, and household wealth Not relevant (HIV testing reported)
Odeny (2013) [35] 60 health facilities in Kenya Contemporaneous observational study 2007-2012 6-12 months Facilities implementing PBF Different facilities not implementing PBF -Treatment failure (CD4 persistently below 100 cells/mm3 after 6–12 months of ART, CD4 falls by ≥50% from on treatment peak value, CD4 falls to or below pre-ART level) Odds ratio adjusted baseline patient characteristics, year of ART initiation, and CD4 cell count at initiation Not reported
Tanoh (2009) [36] 4 health facilities in Cote d'Ivoirea Time-series observational study 2005-2007 24 months Facilities implementing PBF Same facilities before they implemented PBF -ART coverage
-Attrition after 12 months
Crude risk ratios Not reported
  1. aBoth studies were from the same PBF initiative