ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2000
Lessons from the London Initiative Zone Educational Incentives funding: associations between practice characteristics, funding, and courses undertaken.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollowing the Tomlinson report of 1992, London Initiative Zone Educational Incentives (LIZEI) funding was introduced for a three-year period to improve recruitment, retention, and educational opportunities for general practitioners working within inner London.
aimTo test the hypothesis that general practices that show evidence of good organisation achieved better access to LIZEI funding than less organised practices.
methodObservational practice-based study involving all 164 general practices in EAst London and the City Health Authority during the first two years of the scheme, April 1995 to March 1997.
resultsUnivariate analysis showed that higher levels of LIZEI funding were associated with practices where there was evidence of good organisation, including higher targets for cervical cytology screening and immunisation rates for under two-year-olds, better asthma prescribing, and training status. Using ten practice and population explanatory variables, multiple regression models were developed for fundholding and non-fundholding practices. Among non-fundholding practices, the asthma prescribing ratio was the variable with the greatest predictive value, explaining 14.7% of the variation in LIZEI funding between practices. Strong positive associations existed between taking further degrees and diplomas, practice size, training, and non-fundholding status.
conclusionLarger practices, training practices, and those that demonstrated aspects of good practice organisation gained more LIZEI funding: an example of the 'inverse funding law'. Practices within a multifund, based in the Newham locality, gained LIZEI funding regardless of practice organisation. Networks of practices, and, potentially, primary care groups, have a role in equalising the opportunities for education and development between practices in east London.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10750225PMC1313647What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.