ArticleHealthcare policy = Politiques de sante2014
Primary care reform and service use by people with serious mental illness in Ontario.
Article in Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of team-based primary care on health care utilization among patients with mental and substance use disorders: a systematic review of English-language articles.Family practice · 2025Pooled it
- Incentivizing co-occurring disorder diagnoses through blended payments.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2026Article
- Mental Health Services Provision in Primary Care and Emergency Department Settings: Analysis of Blended Fee-for-Service and Blended Capitation Models in Ontario, Canada.Administration and policy in mental health · 2021Article
- Emergency Department Use: Common Presenting Issues and Continuity of Care for Individuals With and Without Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2018Article
- Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine service use by adults with serious mental illness (SMI) rostered in new primary care models: enhanced fee-for-service (FFS), blended-capitation (CAP) and team-based capitation (TBC) models with and without mental health workers (MHW) in Ontario.
methodsThis cross-sectional study used administrative health service databases to compare use of mental health and general health services among persons with SMI enrolled in new models (n = 125,233).
resultsRelative to persons rostered in enhanced FFS, those in CAP and TBC had fewer mental health primary care visits (adjusted rate ratios and 95% confidence limits: CAP: 0.77 [0.74, 0.81]; TBC with MHW: 0.72 [0.68, 0.76]; TBC with no MHW: 0.81 [0.72, 0.93]). Compared to patients in enhanced FFS, those in TBC models also had more mental health hospital admissions (TBC with MHW: 1.12 [1.05, 1.20]; TBC with no MHW: 1.22 [1.05, 1.41]). Patterns of use of general services were similar.
conclusionFurther attention to financial incentives in capitation that influence care of persons with SMI is necessary to determine if they are aligned with aims of primary care reform.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25410694PMC4253894What 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.