Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10916598›Full record

ArticleHealth care management science1999

Productivity and efficiency changes in primary care: a Malmquist index approach.

A Giuffrida

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care management science, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Defining the Optimal Size of Medical Laboratories at the Primary Level of Health Care with Data Envelopment Analysis: Defining the Efficiency of Medical Laboratories.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Organisational determinants of production and efficiency in general practice: a population-based study.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2013
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Technical efficiency in primary health care: does quality matter?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2011
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

1 author.

A GiuffridaNational Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of York, UK. ag19@york.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reforms of the National Health System in the UK introduced in 1990 led to substantial changes in the organisation of primary health care. In this paper we analyse the efficiency of primary care provision in the English Family Health Service Authorities (FHSAs) over the period 1990/91-1994/95. We use Data Envelopment Analysis to measure Malmquist indices of productivity changes, which are then decomposed into indices of pure technical efficiency change, scale efficiency change and technological change. The analysis indicates a small improvement in the productivity over the period considered. The increase is attributed to pure technical efficiency improvement and positive change in scale efficiency, while the technology does not show significant change. The analysis suggests that there is very limited scope for productivity gains in this sector.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalEfficiency, OrganizationalHealth Care ReformModels, StatisticalPrimary Health CareState MedicineUnited Kingdom

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.