Country	Study ID	Study design	Intervention independent of other changes	Shape of the intervention effect prespecified	Intervention unlikely to affect data collection	Knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented during the study	Incomplete outcome data adequately addressed	Selective outcome reporting	Other risks of bias
Brazil	Viñuela 2015	ITS	Unclear: other reforms were happening in the education and justice sectors that could have contributed as well.	Low – specified as per guidance.	Unclear: intervention may have affected data collection.	Low: unlikely allocation affected data collection.	Unclear: not specified.	Low	Note: data were aggregated at high level – this may have impacted analyses and findings.
Cambodia	Ir 2015	ITS	High: multiple PBF reforms introduced alongside voucher schemes and changes to health service delivery (more trained professionals) also occurred.	High – as per guidance, effect shape not specified.	Unclear: intervention may have affected data collected as same source was used for payments and for outcome assessment.	Unclear: health workers themselves appeared to be reporting.	Unclear: not specified.	Low	Low
	Khim 2018a	ITS	Unclear: not specified.	Low – specified as per guidance.	Unclear: intervention may have affected data collection.	Low: unlikely allocation affected data collection.	Unclear: not specified.	Low	Note: several other schemes were implemented at the same time and high variability in implementation of this scheme noted.
	Matsuoka 2014	ITS	Unclear: not specified.	Low – specified as per guidance.	Unclear: intervention may have affected data collection.	Unclear: not specified.	Unclear: not specified.	Low	Note: data reanalyzed.
China	Chang 2017	ITS	High: other interventions concurrent (including further PBF and introduction of database).	Low – specified as per guidance.	High: intervention introduced alongside an HMIS intervention.	Unclear: not specified.	Unclear: not specified.	Low	Note: 3 PBF schemes implemented buy only 1 assessed.
	Wu 2014	ITS	Unclear: other reforms happening but robustness checks performed to ascertain impacts and effects were consistent.	Low – specified as per guidance.	Low: no effects on data collection.	Low: unlikely allocation affected data collection.	Unclear: not specified.	Low	Note: not generalizable, study conducted in 1 setting.
	Liu 2005	ITS	High: other changes in the country likely to affect trends.	Low – specified as per guidance.	Low: no effects on data collection.	Low: blinded and random assessments.	Low: panel dataset.	Low	Low
Rwanda	Rusa 2009a	ITS	High: other changes in the country (user fee removal) likely to affect trends.	Low – specified as per guidance.	Unclear: intervention may have affected data collection.	Unclear: not specified.	Unclear: not specified.	Low	Low
Zambia	Chansa 2015	ITS	Unclear: not specified.	Low – specified as per guidance.	High: intervention introduced alongside audits.	Low: unlikely allocation affected data collection.	Low: HMIS data.	Low	Low
Malawi	McMahon 2016	CBA and ITS	Unclear: not specified.	Low – specified as per guidance.	High: intervention directly targets improvements in data.	Unclear: not specified.	High: several indicators excluded due to missingness.	Low	Low
CBA: controlled before‐after; HMIS: health management information system; ITS: interrupted time series; PBF: performance‐based funding.