How to properly cite sources for power point

#How to properly cite sources for power point series

Overall, schemes adjusting both for quality of service and rewarding equitable delivery of services appeared to perform bestВ in relation to service utilization outcomes. However,В only one study evaluated resultsвЂђbased aid,В so the effectsВ may be spurious. ResultsвЂђbased aid, and schemes using payment per output adjustedВ for service quality, appeared to yield the greatest positive effects on outcomes. The effects of P4P on service quality, resource availabilityВ and unintended effects are uncertain (very low certainty evidence). P4P mayВ improve service quality (low certainty evidence) and may have mixed effects on the delivery and use of health services and on the availability of equipment and medicines (low certainty evidence).ДЇor health outcomes and services that are untargeted, P4P may make little or no difference to health outcomes and to the delivery and use of health services (low certainty evidence). The effects of P4P on the availability of medicines and other resources areВ uncertain (very low certainty evidence).ДЇor health outcomes and services that are specifically targeted, P4P may make little or no difference to health outcomes (low certainty evidence), but few studies assessed this. Impacts on equity were mixed (low certainty evidence).ДЇor health services that are untargeted, P4P probably improves some health outcomes (moderate certainty evidence) may improve the delivery, use and quality of some health services but may make little or no difference to others (low certainty evidence) and may have few or no distorting unintended effects (low certainty evidence). P4P probably makes little to no difference to management quality or facility governance (low certainty evidence). For secondary outcomes, P4P may make little or no difference to provider absenteeism, motivation or satisfaction (low certainty evidence) but may improve patient satisfaction and acceptability (low certainty evidence) and may positively affect facility managerial autonomy (low certainty evidence). P4P may have mixed effects on the delivery and use of services (low certainty evidence) and may have few or no distorting unintended effects on outcomes that were not targeted (lowвЂђcertainty evidence), but few studies assessed these. P4P may also improve service quality overall (low certainty evidence) and probably increases the availability of health workers, medicines and wellвЂђfunctioning infrastructure and equipment (moderate certainty evidence). The interrupted timeвЂђseries studies provided insufficient information on other concurrent changes in the study context.ДЇor health services that are specifically targeted, P4P may slightly improve health outcomes (low certainty evidence), but few studies assessed this. However, some randomised trials were also downgraded due to risk of bias. Four studies reported intervention effects against both comparator and status quo.Д¬ontrolled beforeвЂђafter studies were at higher risk of bias than other study designs. Most studies assessed the effects of P4PВ against a status quo control (49 studies) however, some studies assessedВ effects against comparator interventions (predominantly enhanced financing intended to match P4P funds (17 studies)).

P4P was assessed predominantly at health facility level, though districts and other levels were also involved. Participants were predominantly located in public or in a mix of public, nonвЂђgovernmental and faithвЂђbased facilities (54 studies). Targeted services varied В however, most interventions focused on reproductive, maternalВ and child health indicators.

Many schemes were funded by national governments (23 studies) with the World Bank funding most externally funded schemes (11 studies). Only one study assessed resultsвЂђbased aid. Studies focused on a wide range of P4PВ interventions, including target payments and payment for outputs as modified by quality (or quality and equity assessments).

#How to properly cite sources for power point series

OneВ study included both an interrupted time series and a controlled beforeвЂђafter study. We included 59 studies: controlled beforeвЂђafter studies (19),В nonвЂђrandomizedВ (16) orВ cluster randomized trials (14) and interrupted timeвЂђseries studies (9).