IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0004027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A results to action framework for community verification: A case study from a performance based financing program in Zimbabwe

Author

Listed:
  • Trina Gorman
  • Bernardo Hernandez
  • Geoff Garnett
  • Loida Erhard
  • Taurai Kambeu
  • Malvern Munjoma
  • Brian Maponga
  • Sinokuthemba Xaba
  • Getrude Ncube
  • Jabulani Mavudze
  • Gabrielle O’Malley

Abstract

Performance-based financing (PBF) is a funding strategy that pays for outcomes rather than the cost of inputs. Verification through facility records (quantity verification) and patient interviews in communities (community verification) is a known cornerstone of PBF to ensure reported results are accurate. However, the literature suggests it’s common to tie payment to quantity verification results, which measure internal record alignment but do not assess the validity of records (e.g., whether records represent delivered services). We sought to understand the extent to which reported voluntary medical male circumcisions (VMMCs) in a PBF program could be verified in facility records and with patients, and if the two sources aligned at the facility-level. We performed a mixed method verification including quantity verification and community verification to verify reported results for Population Services International’s VMMC program in Zimbabwe from 2016 – 2018. We also interviewed verifiers to help understand the findings and we assessed the correlation between quantity and community verification performance scores at the facility-level to see whether facilities that have strong record keeping tended to also have strong validation from patients and vice versa. Among the 36,877 VMMCs selected from DHIS2 for quantity verification, 94% of records were sufficiently complete. Among records selected for community verification, only 55% (2,010/3,676) of patients were interviewed. Among those interviewed, 17% (342/2,010) provided answers that did not plausibly match the record. Verifiers reported that some patients admitted providing incorrect contact information to avoid follow-up and most verifiers suspected staff had fabricated data. We found no correlation between performance scores at the facility-level. Overall, results from the quantity verification were not a good proxy for the community verification. Programs that pay based on facility records alone risk overpaying for services and misreporting performance. To increase the use of community verification findings, PBF programs should consider using and improving our proposed results to action framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Trina Gorman & Bernardo Hernandez & Geoff Garnett & Loida Erhard & Taurai Kambeu & Malvern Munjoma & Brian Maponga & Sinokuthemba Xaba & Getrude Ncube & Jabulani Mavudze & Gabrielle O’Malley, 2025. "A results to action framework for community verification: A case study from a performance based financing program in Zimbabwe," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-14, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0004027
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0004027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0004027
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0004027&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0004027. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.