Qualitative Research to Enhance the Evaluation of Results-Based Financing Programmes : The Promise and the Reality
This Discussion Paper presents the approach, findings, and recommendations from a desk review of the qualitative research conducted within Results-Based Financing programmes (RBF) under the Health Results Innovations Trust Fund (HRITF). The review...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2016/03/26012500/qualitative-research-enhance-evaluation-results-based-financing-programmes-promise-reality http://hdl.handle.net/10986/24038 |
| Summary: | This Discussion Paper presents the
approach, findings, and recommendations from a desk review
of the qualitative research conducted within Results-Based
Financing programmes (RBF) under the Health Results
Innovations Trust Fund (HRITF). The review included 17
studies conducted in Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, DRC,
Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Rwanda,
Tajikistan, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The studies
reveal a body of high quality work that is consistent with
the conceptual framework of RBF schemes, supported by
political will, resources, and research capacity.
Strengthening the added value of qualitative inquiry in
on-going and future qualitative studies may be enabled by
small shifts in thinking and practice, in line with a
qualitative research paradigm. First, in order to better
ground research in an existing country and system specific
context, some interrogation of constructs and posited
relationships in the existing conceptual framework for
intervention/evaluation may be required. Second, to enable
more in-depth and richer data that documents working
practices and relations under RBF schemes, training of local
researchers should place stronger emphasis on entry to the
field, gaining trust, building rapport, and sustaining a
dialogue with key informants. Third, smaller, more intensive
and focused studies targeting fewer sites and smaller
samples - but addressing a wider range of methods and
informants within the health system - are likely to yield
richer data that can support the understanding of how health
workers and managers are responding to schemes, and what
impact schemes have on service volumes and outputs. |
|---|