This paper questions the view that performance-based financing (PBF) in the health sector is an effective, efficient and equitable approach to improving the performance of health systems in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). PBF was conceived as an open approach adapted to specific country needs, having the potential to foster system-wide reforms. However, as with many strategies and tools, there is a gap between what was planned and what is actually implemented. This paper argues that PBF as it is currently implemented in many contexts does not satisfy the promises. First, since the start of PBF implementation in LMICs, concerns have been raised on the basis of empirical evidence from different settings and disciplines that indicated the risks, cost and perverse effects. However, PBF implementation was rushed despite insufficient evidence of its effectiveness. Second, there is a lack of domestic ownership of PBF. Considering the amounts of time and money it now absorbs, and the lack of evidence of effectiveness and efficiency, PBF can be characterised as a donor fad. Third, by presenting itself as a comprehensive approach that makes it possible to address all aspects of the health system in any context, PBF monopolises attention and focuses policy dialogue on the short-term results of PBF programmes while diverting attention and resources from broader processes of change and necessary reforms. Too little care is given to system-wide and long-term effects, so that PBF can actually damage health services and systems. This paper ends by proposing entry points for alternative approaches.

Background In early March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic hit West Africa. In response, countries in the region quickly set up crisis management committees and implemented drastic measures to stem the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The objective of this article is to analyse the epidemiological evolution of COVID-19 in seven Francophone West African countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger, Senegal) as well as the public health measures decided upon during the first 7 months of the pandemic. Methods Our method is based on quantitative and qualitative data from the pooling of information from a COVID-19 data platform and collected by a network of interdisciplinary collaborators present in the seven countries. Descriptive and spatial analyses of quantitative epidemiological data, as well as content analyses of qualitative data on public measures and management committees were performed. Results Attack rates (October 2020) for COVID-19 have ranged from 20 per 100,000 inhabitants (Benin) to more than 94 per 100,000 inhabitants (Senegal). All these countries reacted quickly to the crisis, in some cases before the first reported infection, and implemented public measures in a relatively homogeneous manner. None of the countries implemented country-wide lockdowns, but some implemented partial or local containment measures. At the end of June 2020, countries began to lift certain restrictive measures, sometimes under pressure from the general population or from certain economic sectors. Conclusion Much research on COVID-19 remains to be conducted in West Africa to better understand the dynamics of the pandemic, and to further examine the state responses to ensure their appropriateness and adaptation to the national contexts.

Background: Equity seems inherent to the pursuance of universal health coverage (UHC), but it is not a natural consequence of it. We explore how the multidimensional concept of equity has been approached in key global UHC policy documents, as well as in country-level UHC policies. Methods: We analysed a purposeful sample of UHC reports and policy documents both at global level and in two Western African countries (Benin and Senegal). We manually searched each document for its use and discussion of equity and related terms. The content was summarised and thematically analysed, in order to comprehend how these concepts were understood in the documents. We distinguished between the level at which inequity takes place and the origin or types of inequities. Results: Most of the documents analysed do not define equity in the first place, and speak about "health inequities" in the broad sense, without mentioning the dimension or type of inequity considered. Some dimensions of equity are ambiguousespecially coverage and financing. Many documents assimilate equity to an overall objective or guiding principle closely associated to UHC. The concept of equity is also often linked to other concepts and values (social justice, inclusion, solidarity, human rightsbut also to efficiency and sustainability). Regarding the levels of equity most often considered, access (availability, coverage, provision) is the most often quoted dimension, followed by financial protection. Regarding the types of equity considered, those most referred to are socioeconomic , geographic, and gender-based disparities. In Benin and Senegal, geographic inequities are mostly pinpointed by UHC policy documents, but concrete interventions mostly target the poor. Overall, the UHC policy of both countries are quite similar in terms of their approach to equity. Conclusions: While equity is widely referred to in global and country-specific UHC policy documents, its multiple dimensions results in a rather rhetorical utilisation of the concept. Whereas equity covers various levels and types, many global UHC documents fail to define it properly and to comprehend the breadth of the concept. Consequently, perhaps, country-specific policy documents also use equity as a rhetoric principle, without sufficient consideration for concrete ways for implementation.

BackgroundPerformance-based financing (PBF) in the health sector has recently gained momentum in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) as one of the ways forward for achieving Universal Health Coverage. The major principle underlying PBF is that health centers are remunerated based on the quantity and quality of services they provide. PBF has been operating in Burkina Faso since 2011, and as a pilot project since 2014 in 15 health districts randomly assigned into four different models, before an eventual scale-up. Despite the need for expeditious documentation of the impact of PBF, caution is advised to avoid adopting hasty conclusions. Above all, it is crucial to understand why and how an impact is produced or not. Our implementation fidelity study approached this inquiry by comparing, after 12 months of operation, the activities implemented against what was planned initially and will make it possible later to establish links with the policy’s impacts.MethodsOur study compared, in 21 health centers from three health districts, the implementation of activities that were core to the process in terms of content, coverage, and temporality. Data were collected through document analysis, as well as from individual interviews and focus groups with key informants.ResultsIn the first year of implementation, solid foundations were put in place for the intervention. Even so, implementation deficiencies and delays were observed with respect to certain performance auditing procedures, as well as in payments of PBF subsidies, which compromised the incentive-based rationale to some extent.ConclusionOver next months, efforts should be made to adjust the intervention more closely to context and to the original planning.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13690-017-0250-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: In early March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic hit West Africa. Countries in the region quickly set up crisis management committees and organised drastic measures to stem the spread of the coronavirus. The objective of this article is to analyse the epidemiological evolution of COVID-19 in seven Francophone West African countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger, Senegal) as well as the public health measures decided upon during the first four months of the pandemic. Methods: Our method is based on quantitative and qualitative data from the pooling of information from a COVID-19 data platform and collected by a network of interdisciplinary collaborators present in the seven countries. Descriptive and spatial analyses of quantitative epidemiological data and content analyses of qualitative data on public measures and management committees were performed. Results: Attack rates for COVID-19 range from less than 10 per 100,000 inhabitants (Benin) to more than 45 per 100,000 inhabitants (Guinea). The spatio-temporal analysis shows three phases of incidence clusters. By the end of June 2020, case numbers had plateaued in some countries (Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali) while others continued to see the number of infections increasing (Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea, Senegal). The countries all reacted quickly to the crisis, in some cases before the first reported infection, and implemented public measures in a relatively homogeneous manner. None of the countries implemented country-wide lockdowns, but in some cases implemented partial or local containment measures. At the end of June 2020, countries began to lift certain restrictive measures, sometimes under pressure from the general population or from certain economic sectors. All the countries have adopted response plans and organized multiple crisis management committees, although their content and functioning have not always been transparent or easy to understand. Conclusion: Much research remains to be done in West Africa. It will be necessary to better understand the dynamics of the pandemic, which appears to be largely under control, as well as the effectiveness and implementation of the state responses, which have been rapidly formulated.