ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2002
The abolition of the GP fundholding scheme: a lesson in evidence-based policy making.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- GPs in UK: From Health Gatekeepers in Primary Care to Health Agents in Primary Health Care.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2023Article
- Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: a mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Review
- Why strengthening primary health care is essential to achieving universal health coverage.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The general practitioner (GP) fundholding scheme was introduced as part of the Conservative governments 1991 National Health Service reforms and abolished by the Labour government in 1998. This paper contends that the scheme was introduced and abolished without policy-makers having any valid evidence of its effects. In particular, it focuses on the salient features of the decision to abolish. These were: (a) that it was not based on evidence; (b) that it came relatively soon after the introduction of the scheme; and (c) the GP fundholding scheme was voluntary and increasing numbers of GPs were being recruited. The overtly political nature of the introduction of GP fundholding is already well documented and is important in understanding the lack of evidence involved in the development of the fundholding scheme.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11885824PMC1314221What 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.