Systemic factors affecting the technical quality of healthcare in results-based financing in Burkina Faso.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: In the implementation of the results-based financing (PBF) strategy in Burkina Faso, there is heterogeneity in the performance of technical quality of healthcare in basic healthcare facilities. This study aims to identify the factors that may explain this heterogeneity. Methods: We carried out a quantitative study in 30 basic public health facilities, thirteen of which have a quality score greater than or equal to 50% and 17 of which have a quality score less than 50%. Data from their profiles were collected using a direct observation grid. A total of 94 health professionals answered a series of semi-structured questions. A bivariate analysis using the Chi-square test and a multivariate analysis using the multiple regression model were used. Results: The difference is statistically significant in favour of health facilities with good performance in technical quality in terms of health infrastructure (p=0.020), health equipment (p=0.004) and compliance with norms and standards in terms of health personnel (p=0.004). The variables used in the multiple regression model are ongoing training (p=0.000), internal communication (p=0.000) and financial motivation (p=0.003) of health professionals. Conclusion: These results suggest that the effectiveness of the technical quality of healthcare in implementing the PBF depends on certain basic conditions in the health facilities, such as the presence of infrastructures, equipment and human resources that meet established norms and standards and the managerial dynamics of healthcare workers.
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 | 0.193 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.043 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".