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