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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLOS Global Public Health
Published
2025-08-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004027
Primary Topic
Genital Health and Disease
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Malvern Munjoma, Taurai Kambeu, Gabrielle O’Malley, Geoff P. Garnett et al.
PLOS Global Public Health
Genital Health and Disease
article

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

Malvern Munjoma, Taurai Kambeu, Gabrielle O’Malley, Geoff P. Garnett, Bernardo Hernández, Sinokuthemba Xaba, Getrude Ncube, Trina Gorman, Jabulani Mavudze, Brian Maponga, Loida Erhard
article en

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.

PLOS Global Public HealthVol. 5(8)
Gates Foundation (US), University of Washington (US), Ministry of Health and Child Welfare (ZW), Edmonds Community College (US), Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (US), National Institute of Public Health (SI)
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Genital Health and Disease
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.