Did the learning agenda of the world bank-administrated health results innovation trust fund shape politicised evidence on performance-based financing? A documentary analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Bank, co-funded by Norway and the United Kingdom, created and managed an innovative financing mechanism, the Health Results Innovation Trust Fund (HRITF), to support performance-based financing (PBF) reforms in low- and middle-income countries. From its inception in late 2007, until the closing of fundraising in 2017, it has carried out a wide range of activities related to experimenting PBF. In conjunction with the World Bank, which positioned itself as a “learning organisation”, donors have pushed the HRITF towards developing a specific learning agenda for documenting the policy impact of PBF. This learning agenda has been primarily based on impact evaluations of PBF pilot programmes. As a new body took over the HRITF’s portfolio (Global Financial Facility),a documentary analysis of this learning agenda is timely. Building from public policy concepts that have been applied to social and health policy, and knowledge translation literature, we examine the learning agenda implemented by the HRITF over these 10 years. Our data includes documentation and publications (N=35) on HRITF and from the HRITF online platform. Results indicate that on several fronts, the HRITF shaped some form of politicised knowledge, notably in the ways country pilot grants were designed and evaluated. Some of its learning activities also provided opportunities for a transformative use of knowledge for World Bank staff as well as national implementers and policymakers. We also provide reflections about the HRITF’s preferred approaches to produce knowledgeand learn.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".