ArticleHealthcare policy = Politiques de sante2011
Assessing the acceptability of quality indicators and linkages to payment in primary care in nova scotia.
Article in Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Priority measures for publicly reporting primary care performance: Results of public engagement through deliberative dialogues in 3 Canadian provinces.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2006, the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) released a comprehensive set of quality indicators (QIs) for primary healthcare (PHC). We explored the acceptability of a subset of these as measures of the technical quality of care and the potential link to payment incentive tools. A modified Delphi approach, based on the RAND consensus panel method, was used with an expert panel composed of PHC providers (family physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners) and decision-makers with no previous experience of "pay for performance." A nine-point Likert scale was used to rate the acceptability of 35 selected CIHI QIs in community practice and the acceptability of a payment mechanism associated with each. QIs rated with disagreement were discussed and re-rated in a face-to-face meeting. The panel rated 19 QIs as "acceptable." Payment incentives associated with these QIs were acceptable for 13. Several factors emerged that were common to the less appealing QIs with respect to payment linkage.
Identifiers
22548100PMC3107119W2077209205What 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.