ArticleBMC family practice2011
Did changing primary care delivery models change performance? A population based study using health administrative data.
Article in BMC family practice, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of primary care reform on health system performance in Canada: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2016Pooled it
- Reforms and innovations in primary health care in different countries: scoping review.Primary health care research & development · 2024Article
- Comparing primary care Interprofessional and non-interprofessional teams on access to care and health services utilization in Ontario, Canada: a retrospective cohort study.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- The impact of the diabetes management incentive on diabetes-related services: evidence from Ontario, Canada.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Article
- Primary care renewal strategies in Manitoba: Family physicians' perceptions.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
- Measuring the performance of interprofessional primary health care teams: understanding the teams perspective.Primary health care research & development · 2019Article
- Periodic health visits by primary care practice model, a population-based study using health administrative data.BMC family practice · 2019Article
- Financial Incentives and Cervical Cancer Screening Participation in Ontario's Primary Care Practice Models.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2016Article
- The effect of rostering with a patient enrolment model on emergency department utilization.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2014Article
- Periodic health examinations for adults with developmental disabilities: are we doing enough?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2014Article
- Article
- Effect of provider and patient reminders, deployment of nurse practitioners, and financial incentives on cervical and breast cancer screening rates.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2013Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care reform in Ontario, Canada started with the introduction of new enrollment models, the two largest of which are Family Health Networks (FHNs), a capitation-based model, and Family Health Groups (FHGs), a blended fee-for-service model. The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in performance between FHNs and FHGs and to compare performance before and after physicians joined these new primary care groups.
methodsThis study used Ontario administrative claims data to compare performance measures in FHGs and FHNs. The study population included physicians who belonged to a FHN or FHG for at least two years. Patients were included in the analyses if they enrolled with a physician in the two years after the physician joined a FHN or FHG, and also if they saw the physician in a two year period prior to the physician joining a FHN or FHG. Performance was derived from the administrative data, and included measures of preventive screening for cancer (breast, cervical, colorectal) and chronic disease management (diabetes, heart failure, asthma).
resultsPerformance measures did not vary consistently between models. In some cases, performance approached current benchmarks (Pap smears, mammograms). In other cases it was improving in relation to previous measures (colorectal cancer screening). There were no changes in screening for cervical cancer or breast cancer after joining either a FHN or FHG. Colorectal cancer screening increased in both FHNs and FHGs. After enrolling in either a FHG or a FHN, prescribing performance measures for diabetes care improved. However, annual eye examinations decreased for younger people with diabetes after joining a FHG or FHN. There were no changes in performance measures for heart failure management or asthma care after enrolling in either a FHG or FHN.
conclusionsSome improvements in preventive screening and diabetes management which were seen amongst people after they enrolled may be attributed to incentive payments offered to physicians within FHGs and FHNs. However, these primary care delivery models need to be compared with other delivery models and fee for service practices in order to describe more specifically what aspects of model delivery and incentives affect care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.