ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2007
Quality of clinical primary care and targeted incentive payments: an observational study.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
47 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Value-Based Provider Payment Initiatives Combining Global Payments With Explicit Quality Incentives: A Systematic Review.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2020Pooled it
- Effectiveness of UK provider financial incentives on quality of care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Pooled it
- The role of the Quality and Outcomes Framework in the care of long-term conditions: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Pooled it
- Healthcare financing systems for increasing the use of tobacco dependence treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Quality indicators for the primary care of osteoarthritis: a systematic review.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2015Pooled it
- The impact of Croatia's 2013 Primary Care Payment Reform: an exploratory case study of a rural family practitioner group practice.Croatian medical journal · 2025Article
- Performance-based payment systems for general practitioners and specialists in selected countries: a comparative study.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Examining the Long-term Spillover Effects of a Pay-for-Performance Program in a Healthcare System That Lacks Referral Arrangements.International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- The Lancet Global Health Commission on financing primary health care: putting people at the centre.The Lancet. Global health · 2022Review
- What do primary care staff know and do about blood borne virus testing and care for migrant patients? A national survey.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Intended and unintended effects: community perspectives on a performance-based financing programme in Malawi.BMJ global health · 2020Article
- Primary care supply and quality of care in England.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018Article
- A Qualitative Study on Incentives and Disincentives for Care of Common Mental Disorders in Ontario Family Health Teams.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2016Article
- Patient-reported quality indicators for osteoarthritis: a patient and public generated self-report measure for primary care.Research involvement and engagement · 2016Article
- How could the quality and outcomes framework (QOF) do more to tackle health inequalities?London journal of primary care · 2016Article
- Improving the care of people with long-term conditions in primary care: protocol for the ENHANCE pilot trial.Journal of comorbidity · 2015Article
- Acceptability of a 'guidebook' for the management of Osteoarthritis: a qualitative study of patient and clinician's perspectives.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2014Article
- Economic inequalities in burden of illness, diagnosis and treatment of five long-term conditions in England: panel study.BMJ open · 2014Article
- Self-reported quality of care for older adults from 2004 to 2011: a cohort study.Age and ageing · 2014Article
- Incentives and disincentives for the treatment of depression and anxiety: a scoping review.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPayments for recorded evidence of quality of clinical care in UK general practices were introduced in 2004.
aimTo examine the relationship between changes in recorded quality of care for four common chronic conditions from, 2003 to 2005, and the payment of incentives. DESIGN OF STUDY: Retrospective observational study comparing incentivised and non-incentivised indicators of quality of care.
settingEighteen general practices in England.
methodMedical records were examined for 1156 patients. The percentage of eligible quality indicators achieved for each patient was assessed in 2003 and 2005. Twenty-one quality indicators referred to asthma and hypertension: six subject to and 15 not subject to incentive payments. Another 15 indicators referred to depression and osteoarthritis which were not subject to incentive payments.
resultsA significant increase occurred for the six indicators linked to incentive payments: from 75% achieved in 2003 to 91% in 2005 (change = 16%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10 to 22%, P <0.01). A significant increase also occurred for 15 other indicators linked to 'incentivised conditions'; 53 to 64% (change = 11%, 95% CI = 6 to 15%, P <0.01). The 'non-incentivised conditions' started at a lower achievement level, and did not increase significantly: 35 to 36% (change = 2%, 95% CI = -1 to 4%, P = 0.19).
conclusionThe introduction of financial incentives was associated with substantial apparent quality improvement for incentivised conditions. For non-incentivised conditions, quality did not appear to improve. Patients with non-incentivised conditions may be at risk of poorer quality care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17550669PMC2078183What 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.