Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10182192›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics1998

The impact of managed care on clinical research.

M McKee, E Mossialos

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

M McKeeEuropean Centre on Health of Societies in Transition, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, England. m.mckee@lshtm.ac.uk
E Mossialos

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditionally, US teaching hospitals have subsidised research by charging higher costs for treatment; however, this approach is being challenged. The growth of managed-care organisations, concerned about maximising profits, has led many to argue that clinical research will be damaged, whether by the loss of internal funds for research or by reductions in the numbers of patients available for studies. This review examines the evidence on which this argument is based. There is some evidence that managed-care organisations are refusing to cover patients who are involved in clinical trials, although, in general, they are receptive towards research providing that it is explicit and seen as relevant. The indirect effects of competition are, arguably, more important. Although many academic centres have established strategies to protect research funds, those working in the most competitive healthcare environments are obtaining fewer externally funded research grants. They are also publishing fewer papers and are working in climates that are seen as less supportive, with less ability to undertake research that is not externally funded. There is little evidence that managed care is reducing access to patients for clinical research. The growth of managed care is, together with certain other trends, also influencing the nature of clinical research. The overall consequences of these different factors are difficult to predict, although there are grounds for concern about recruitment and retention of junior researchers. The relationship between the various actors involved in healthcare and research is dynamic and, as pressure is excerpted in a particular direction, others adapt. It may be some time before the consequences of policies being enacted now are apparent.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicCost ControlHospitals, UniversityHumansManaged Care ProgramsResearchUnited States

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.