ArticleBMC research notes2015
Financial team incentives improved recording of diagnoses in primary care: a quasi-experimental longitudinal follow-up study with controls.
Article in BMC research notes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of remuneration, extrinsic and intrinsic incentives on interprofessional primary care teams: results from a rapid scoping review.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Chronic kidney disease: detect, diagnose, disclose-a UK primary care perspective of barriers and enablers to effective kidney care.BMC medicine · 2024Review
- Estimated impact from the withdrawal of primary care financial incentives on selected indicators of quality of care in Scotland: controlled interrupted time series analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Development of office-hours use of primary health centers in the early years of the 21International journal of circumpolar health · 2022Observational
- Diagnostic coding of chronic physical conditions in Irish general practice.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Article
- Development of the use of primary health care emergency departments after interventions aimed at decreasing overcrowding: a longitudinal follow-up study.BMC emergency medicine · 2022Observational
- The influence of electronic reminders on recording diagnoses in a primary health care emergency department: a register-based study in a Finnish town.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2021Article
- The effect of electronic reminders on the recording of diagnoses in primary care: A quasi-experimental before and after study.SAGE open medicine · 2020Article
- Improving the Recording of Diagnoses in Primary Care with Team Incentives: A Controlled Longitudinal Follow-Up Study.BioMed research international · 2018Observational
- A comparison of the effects of electronic reminders and group bonuses on the recording of diagnoses in primary care: a longitudinal follow-up study.BMC research notes · 2017Article
- A Competition between Care Teams Improved Recording of Diagnoses in Primary Dental Care: A Longitudinal Follow-Up Study.International journal of dentistry · 2017Article
- A Primary Care Emergency Service Reduction Did Not Increase Office-Hour Service Use: A Longitudinal Follow-up Study.Journal of primary care & community healthObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn primary care, financial incentives have usually been directed to physicians because they are thought to make the key decisions in order to change the functions of a medical organization. There are no studies regarding the impact that directing these incentives to all disciplines of the care team (e.g. group bonuses for both nurses and doctors) may have, despite the low frequency with which diagnoses were being recorded for primary care visits to doctors. This study tested the effect of offering group bonuses to the care teams.
methodsThis was a retrospective quasi-experimental study with before-and-after settings and two control groups. In the intervention group, the mean percentage of visits to a doctor for which a diagnosis was recorded by each individual care team (mean team-based percentage of monthly visits to a doctor with recorded diagnoses) and simultaneously the same data was gathered from two different primary care settings where no team bonuses were applied. To study the sustainability of changes obtained with the group bonuses the respective data were derived from the electronic health record system for 2 years after the cessation of the intervention. The differences in the rate of marking diagnoses was analyzed with ANOVA and RM-ANOVA with appropriate post hoc tests, and the differences in the rate of change in marking diagnoses was analyzed with linear regression followed by t-test.
resultsThe proportion of doctor visits having recorded diagnoses in the teams was about 55 % before starting to use group bonuses and 90 % after this intervention. There was no such increase in control units. The effect of the intervention weakened slightly after cessation of the group bonuses.
conclusionGroup bonuses may provide a method to alter clinical practices in primary care. However, sustainability of these interventions may diminish after ceasing this type of financial incentive.
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.