Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21660562›Full record

SynthesisThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2012

Economic evaluation of pay-for-performance in health care: a systematic review.

Martin Emmert, Frank Eijkenaar, Heike Kemter, Adelheid Susanne Esslinger, Oliver Schöffski

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. General practice incentives: a review of the international literature.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Effects of pay-for-performance for primary care physicians on diabetes outcomes in single-payer health systems: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Payment methods for outpatient care facilities.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Martin EmmertInstitute of Management (IFM), School of Business and Economics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Lange Gasse 20, 90403, Nuremberg, Germany. Martin.Emmert@wiso.uni-erlangen.de
Frank Eijkenaar
Heike Kemter
Adelheid Susanne Esslinger
Oliver Schöffski

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPay-for-performance (P4P) intents to stimulate both more effective and more efficient health care delivery. To date, evidence on whether P4P itself is an efficient method has not been systematically analyzed.

objectiveTo identify and analyze the existing literature regarding economic evaluation of P4P. DATA SOURCES: English, German, Spanish, and Turkish language literature were searched in the following databases: Business Source Complete, the Cochrane Library, Econlit, ISI web of knowledge, Medline (via PubMed), and PsycInfo (January 2000-April 2010). STUDY SELECTION: Articles published in peer-reviewed journals and describing economic evaluations of P4P initiatives. Full economic evaluations, considering costs and consequences of the P4P intervention simultaneously, were the prime focus. Additionally, comparative partial evaluations were included if costs were described and the study allows for an assessment of consequences. Both experimental and observational studies were considered.

resultsIn total, nine studies could be identified. Three studies could be regarded as full economic evaluations, and six studies were classified as partial economic evaluations. Based on the full economic evaluations, P4P efficiency could not be demonstrated. Partial economic evaluations showed mixed results, but several flaws limit their significance. Ranges of costs and consequences were typically narrow, and programs differed considerably in design. Methodological quality assessment showed scores between 32% and 65%.

conclusionThe results show that evidence on the efficiency of P4P is scarce and inconclusive. P4P efficiency could not be demonstrated. The small number and variability of included studies limit the strength of our conclusions. More research addressing P4P efficiency is needed.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality Assurance, Health CareReimbursement, Incentive

Identifiers

PMID21660562

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.