ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2015
Patients' views on pay for performance in France: a qualitative study in primary care.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2015. 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.
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
backgroundPay for performance was implemented in 2009 in France. The system was optional at first and then became widespread. Since 2012, it has been standard for most GPs. Several studies have attempted to investigate its efficiency and the GP's opinion of the system, but few studies have yet to examine the patient's view.
aimTo gain an understanding of the views of French family practice patients about pay for performance. DESIGN AND
settingForty patients were interviewed between March and July 2013 in the Île-de-France region, of France.
methodA qualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews, in primary care.
resultsMost of the patients did not know what pay for performance was and stated that they had not noticed any change in care since the system began. Some patients noted the possible benefits in the quality of care, such as an improvement in follow-up and prevention, better information provided by the GP, and a decrease in the volume of prescriptions and therefore health costs. Other patients were concerned about potential downsides, such as an overprescription of unnecessary medical treatments, an increase in health costs, patient selection, and standardised consultations that do not necessarily take into account the patient's individual concerns.
conclusionSince implementation of pay for performance, patients had not noticed any modification in their medical care. They could understand the need for change in the remuneration policy and expressed their agreement about performance-based remuneration if, and only if, it is not the cause of depersonalised health care.
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.