Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10908475›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Target payments in primary care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

A Giuffrida, T Gosden, F Forland, I S Kristiansen, M Sergison, B Leese, L Pedersen, M Sutton

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pharmaceutical policies: effects of financial incentives for prescribers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Financial incentive schemes in primary care.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2015
    Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

A GiuffridaSustainable Development Department, Social Development Division, Inter-American Development Bank, 1300 New York Avenue, NW, Stop W0502, Washington DC 20577, USA. antoniogi@iadb.org
T Gosden
F Forland
I S Kristiansen
M Sergison
B Leese
L Pedersen
M Sutton

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe method by which physicians are paid may affect their professional practice. Although payment systems may be used to achieve policy objectives (e.g. improving quality of care, cost containment and recruitment to under-served areas), little is known about the effects of different payment systems in achieving these objectives. Target payments are a payment system which remunerate professionals only if they provide a minimum level of care.

objectivesTo evaluate the impact of target payments on the professional practice of primary care physicians (PCPs) and health care outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register; MEDLINE (1966 to October 1997); BIDS EMBASE (1980 to October 1997); BIDS ISI (1981 to October 1997); EconLit (1969 to October 1997); HealthStar (1975 to October 1997) Helmis (1984 to October 1997); health economics discussion paper series of the Universities of York, Aberdeen, Sheffield, Bristol, Brunel, and McMaster; Swedish Institute of Health Economics; RAND corporation; and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of interventions comparing the impact of target payments to primary care professionals with alternative methods of payment, on patient outcomes, health services utilisation, health care costs, equity of care, and PCP satisfaction with working environment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN

resultsTwo studies were included involving 149 practices. The use of target payments in the remuneration of PCPs was associated with improvements in immunisation rates, but the increase was statistically significant in only one of the two studies. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThe evidence from the studies identified in this review is not of sufficient quality or power to obtain a clear answer to the question as to whether target payment remuneration provides a method of improving primary health care. Additional efforts should be directed in evaluating changes in physicians' remuneration systems. Although it would not be difficult to design a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of such payment systems, it would be difficult politically to conduct such trials.

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Physicians'HumansImmunizationPrimary Health CareReimbursement, Incentive

Identifiers

PMID10908475
PMCPMC7032683

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.