The evidence gap on gendered impacts of performance-based financing among family physicians for chronic disease care: a systematic review reanalysis in contexts of single-payer universal coverage

Gupta, Neeru; Ayles, Holly M.

doi:10.1186/s12960-020-00512-9

Table 1 Evaluation grid for consideration of sex and gender in P4P impact assessments

From: The evidence gap on gendered impacts of performance-based financing among family physicians for chronic disease care: a systematic review reanalysis in contexts of single-payer universal coverage

Item 1: Relates sex and/or gender in the study design
2 = Methods describe that the analysis will be disaggregated by sex of both patients and providers
1 = Methods describe that the analysis will be disaggregated by sex of either patients or providers (not both)
0 = No sex disaggregation described
Item 2: Includes disaggregated data by sex of the patient in the results
2 = Results include sex-disaggregated data for patients in the P4P assessment
1 = Results include only descriptives of sex-disaggregated data (e.g., general demographic characteristics of the patient population in tables/figures)
0 = No sex-disaggregated patient data presented in the results
Item 3: Considers gender perspective of the patient as part of the P4P assessment
2 = Narrative substantively discusses the influence of P4P in gender-based analysis from an equity perspective (in the results, discussion, and/or conclusion)
1 = Narrative only describes how sex and other identity factors impacted on patient outcomes in the results (i.e., minimal attention to gender as relevant to P4P)
0 = No mention of patient sex/gender in the results, discussion, or conclusion
Item 4: Includes disaggregated data by sex of the provider in the results
2 = Results include sex-disaggregated data for providers in the P4P assessment
1 = Results include only descriptives of sex-disaggregated data (e.g., general demographic characteristics of the provider workforce in tables/figures)
0 = No sex-disaggregated provider data presented in the results
Item 5: Considers gender perspective of the provider as part of the P4P assessment
2 = Narrative substantively discusses the influence of P4P in gender-based analysis from an equity perspective (in the results, discussion, and/or conclusion)
1 = Narrative only describes how sex and other identity factors impacted on provider outcomes in the results (i.e., minimal attention to gender as relevant to P4P)
0 = No mention of provider sex/gender in the results, discussion, or conclusion

Back to article page