Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Oct 22;19(1):733.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4558-3.

Responding to policy makers' evaluation needs: combining experimental and quasi-experimental approaches to estimate the impact of performance based financing in Burkina Faso

Affiliations

Responding to policy makers' evaluation needs: combining experimental and quasi-experimental approaches to estimate the impact of performance based financing in Burkina Faso

Manuela De Allegri et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: The last two decades have seen a growing recognition of the need to expand the impact evaluation toolbox from an exclusive focus on randomized controlled trials to including quasi-experimental approaches. This appears to be particularly relevant when evaluation complex health interventions embedded in real-life settings often characterized by multiple research interests, limited researcher control, concurrently implemented policies and interventions, and other internal validity-threatening circumstances. To date, however, most studies described in the literature have employed either an exclusive experimental or an exclusive quasi-experimental approach.

Methods: This paper presents the case of a study design exploiting the respective advantages of both approaches by combining experimental and quasi-experimental elements to evaluate the impact of a Performance-Based Financing (PBF) intervention in Burkina Faso. Specifically, the study employed a quasi-experimental design (pretest-posttest with comparison) with a nested experimental component (randomized controlled trial). A difference-in-differences approach was used as the main analytical strategy.

Discussion: We aim to illustrate a way to reconcile scientific and pragmatic concerns to generate policy-relevant evidence on the intervention's impact, which is methodologically rigorous in its identification strategy but also considerate of the context within which the intervention took place. In particular, we highlight how we formulated our research questions, ultimately leading our design choices, on the basis of the knowledge needs expressed by the policy and implementing stakeholders. We discuss methodological weaknesses of the design arising from contextual constraints and the accommodation of various interests, and how we worked ex-post to address them to the best extent possible to ensure maximal accuracy and credibility of our findings. We hope that our case may be inspirational for other researchers wishing to undertake research in settings where field circumstances do not appear to be ideal for an impact evaluation.

Trial registration: Registered with RIDIE (RIDIE-STUDY-ID- 54412a964bce8 ) on 10/17/2014.

Keywords: Burkina Faso; Difference-in-differences; Performance-based financing; Quasi-experiment; Randomized controlled trial.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Three of the authors (JPR, OH, SH) are employed directly by the agency funding the study, The World Bank. Nevertheless, they declare having interacted in full autonomy with the independent team of researchers at Heidelberg University and Centre Muraz and not having received any pressure from higher level management in relation to the definition of the study design.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
“Study design”
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
“PBF theory of change”

References

    1. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321:694–696. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, Emery J, Farmer A, Griffiths F, et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ. 2007;334:455. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be? BMJ. 2004;328:1561. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Seers K. Evaluating complex interventions. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2007;4:67–68. - PubMed
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. - PMC - PubMed

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources