Observational studyEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2014
Compliance with quality prescribing indicators linked to financial incentives: what about not incentivized indicators?: an observational study.
Observational study in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Effects of a primary care intervention to improve the quality of zolpidem prescriptions in elderly patients.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aims of this study were to investigate whether general practitioners (GPs) who complied with quality prescribing indicators included in the pay-for-performance programmes also complied with quality prescribing indicators which are not linked to incentives and to compare the prescribing behaviour between those GPs who showed compliance with quality prescribing indicators linked to financial incentives and those who did not. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study which was conducted in 2007 in the Aljarafe Primary Care Area (Andalusia, Spain) and involved 37 Health Care Centres and 176 GPs. The main outcome was the results of a comparison of six quality prescribing indicators linked to incentives and 14 quality prescribing indicators not linked to incentives. The chi-square test was used to compare qualitative variables. Quantitative variables were tested using Student's t test upon confirmation of normality.
resultsThose GPs showing compliance with the indicators included in the pay-for performance programme showed low levels of compliance with quality prescribing indicators that were unincentivised. With respect to compliance with the indicators not linked to financial incentives, we found no statistical difference between GPs who showed compliance with incentivised indicators (n = 57) and those showing non-compliance (n = 112) in terms of drug selection, with the exception of the selection of second- and third-line antibiotics and antihistamines, nor in terms of the appropriate use of drugs linked to patient's clinical conditions.
conclusionsThe compliance of GPs showing compliance with quality prescribing indicators included in pay-for-performance programmes was not better than that of those who showed no compliance with other relevant quality prescribing indicators not linked to financial incentives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24297343What 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.