Observational studyJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2015
Performance of new alternative providers of primary care services in England: an observational study.
Observational study in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the impact of capitation funding top-up payments in primary care.BMC primary care · 2026Observational
- Community participation and contracting between state and non-state actors in primary care: A scoping review of evidence.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- General practice characteristics associated with pay-for-performance in the UK: a systematic review.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Importance of accessibility and opening hours to overall patient experience of general practice: analysis of repeated cross-sectional data from a national patient survey.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
- Contract and ownership type of general practices and patient experience in England: multilevel analysis of a national cross-sectional survey.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2017Article
- Resilience: what is it, why do we need it, and can it help us?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesHealth system reforms in England are opening broad areas of clinical practice to new providers of care. As part of these reforms, new entrants--including private companies--have been allowed into the primary care market under 'alternative provider of medical services' contracting mechanisms since 2004. The characteristics and performance of general practices working under new alternative provider contracts are not well described. We sought to compare the quality of care provided by new entrant providers to that provided by the traditional model of general practice.
designOpen cohort study of English general practices. We used linear regression in cross-sectional and time series analyses, adjusting for practice and population characteristics, to compare quality in practices using alternative provider contracts to traditional practices. We created regression models using practice fixed effects to estimate the impact of practices changing to the new contract type.
settingThe English National Health Service.
participantsAll general practices open from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013.
main outcome measuresSeventeen established quality indicators--covering clinical effectiveness, efficiency, access and patient experience.
resultsIn total, 4.1% (347 of 8300) of general practices in England were run by alternative contract providers. These practices tended to be smaller, and serve younger, more diverse and more deprived populations than traditional providers. Practices run by alternative providers performed worse than traditional providers on 15 of 17 indicators after adjusting for practice and population characteristics (p < 0.01 for all). Switching to a new alternative provider contract did not result in improved performance.
conclusionsThe introduction of new alternative providers to deliver primary care services in England has not led to improvements in quality and may have resulted in worse care. Regulators should ensure that new entrants to clinical provider markets are performing to adequate standards and at least as well as traditional providers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.