Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19106379›Full record

ArticleDiabetes care2009

Population intermediate outcomes of diabetes under pay-for-performance incentives in England from 2004 to 2008.

Pooja Vaghela, Mark Ashworth, Peter Schofield, Martin C Gulliford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetes care, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Design and effects of outcome-based payment models in healthcare: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Is a diabetes pay-for-performance program cost-effective under the National Health Insurance in Taiwan?Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2014
    Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Pooja VaghelaDepartment of Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Mark Ashworth
Peter Schofield
Martin C Gulliford

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate diabetes outcomes under a national "pay-for-performance" program. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsData were analyzed for 98% of all English family practices. For each practice, the proportion of diabetic subjects with A1C <or=7.5%, blood pressure <or=145/85 mmHg, and cholesterol <or=5 mmol/l was determined. Practices achieving less than the 25th centile for the A1C target for 2006-2007 were classified as low performing.

resultsThe proportion achieving the A1C target at the median practice increased from 59.1% (interquartile range [IQR] 51.7-65.9) in 2004-2005 to 66.7% (IQR 60.6-72.7) in 2007-2008, blood pressure from 70.9% in 2004-2005 to 80.2% in 2007-2008, and cholesterol from 72.6% in 2004-2005 to 83.6% in 2007-2008. In 2004-2005, 57% of practices were low performing (range by region 42.4-69.9). In 2007-2008, 26% of practices were low performing (range 11.6-37.5).

conclusionsIntroduction of pay-for-performance may be one factor contributing to increasing achievement of targets and reducing problems of low performance.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusRewardEnglandFamily PracticeHumansNational Health Programs

Identifiers

PMID19106379
PMCPMC2646022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.