Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23540486›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2013

The Public Health Impact score: a new measure of public health effectiveness for general practices in England.

Mark Ashworth, Peter Schofield, Tim Doran, Richard Cookson, Matthew Sutton, Paul T Seed, Amanda Howe, Robert Fleetcroft

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. General practice - the integrating discipline.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  2. Primary care: a national asset.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. The discipline of general practice: recognition and teaching.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Accounting for multimorbidity in pay for performance: a modelling study using UK Quality and Outcomes Framework data.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Article
  7. How a universal health system reduces inequalities: lessons from England.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2016
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Mark AshworthDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London School of Medicine, UK. mark.ashworth@kcl.ac.uk
Peter Schofield
Tim Doran
Richard Cookson
Matthew Sutton
Paul T Seed
Amanda Howe
Robert Fleetcroft

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2011-04-016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth policy in the UK is increasingly focused on the measurement of outcomes rather than structures and processes of health care.

aimTo develop a measure of the effectiveness of primary care in terms of population health outcomes. DESIGN AND

settingA cross-sectional study of general practices in England.

methodTwenty clinical quality of care indicators for which there was evidence of mortality reduction were identified from the national Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) pay-for-performance scheme. The number of lives saved by 8136 English practices (97.97% of all practices) in 2009/2010 was estimated, based on their performance on these measures, and a public health impact measure, the PHI score, was constructed. Multilevel regression models were used to identify practice and population predictors of PHI scores.

resultsThe mean estimated PHI score was 258.9 (standard deviation [SD] = 73.3) lives saved per 100 000 registered patients, per annum. This represents 75.7% of the maximum potential PHI score of 340.9 (SD = 91.8). PHI and QOF scores were weakly correlated (Pearson r = 0.28). The most powerful predictors of PHI score were the prevalence of the relevant clinical conditions (β = 0.77) and the proportion of patients aged ≥65 years (β = 0.22). General practices that were less successful at achieving their maximum potential PHI score were those with a lower prevalence of relevant conditions (β = 0.29), larger list sizes (β = -0.16), greater area deprivation (β = -0.15), and a larger proportion of patients aged ≥65 years (β = -0.13).

conclusionThe PHI score is a potential alternative metric of practice performance, measuring the estimated mortality reduction in the registered population. Rewards under the QOF pay-for-performance scheme are not closely aligned to the public health impact of practices.

Indexed as

General PracticePrimary Health CarePublic HealthCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareQuality of Health CareRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID23540486
PMCPMC3609477

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.