Skip to main content

Table 3 Mean proportion of statistically significant effect sizes by the scheme

From: Is the evidence on the effectiveness of pay for performance schemes in healthcare changing? Evidence from a meta-regression analysis

Schemes Proportion of significant effect sizes Number of effect sizes Number of studies
aAfghanistan P4P 0 7 1
CAPI-ROSP 0.82 37 3
aChronic disease P4P 0.20 35 1
aCommunity-based psychiatric care P4P 1 6 1
aHighmark’s Quality Blue (QB) in Pennsylvania 1 1 1
aImprove hospital discharge follow-ups P4P 0 5 1
aMedicaid 0.18 28 1
aMental health P4P 1 24 1
aP4P for Antibiotics 0.50 6 1
P4P for Diabetes 0.74 98 9
P4P for Hepatitis 0.75 8 2
aP4P for Immunization 0.36 28 1
P4P for Malaria 0.82 11 1
aP4P for Maternal care 0.73 67 3
aP4P for drug prescription 0.50 24 1
aPartners for Kids 0.67 21 1
aPay for results P4P 0.60 63 1
aPhysician Integrated Network (PIN) 0.67 3 1
Quality and Outcomes Framework 0.33 6 2
aQueensland P4P 0.25 4 1
Rwanda P4P 0.19 108 1
aSpontaneous breathing (SBTs) P4P 0.50 18 1
aLow-Density lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) 0.33 12 1
  1. Note: a denotes the new schemes evaluated in the new studies