Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26567253›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Perspectives on financial incentives to health service providers for increasing breast feeding and smoking quit rates during pregnancy: a mixed methods study.

Pat Hoddinott, Gill Thomson, Heather Morgan, Nicola Crossland, Graeme MacLennan, Fiona Dykes, Fiona Stewart, Linda Bauld, Marion K Campbell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Contingency Management Versus Psychotherapy for Prenatal Smoking Cessation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    Pooled it
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Pat HoddinottNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4372-9681
Gill ThomsonMaternal and Infant Nutrition and Nurture Unit (MAINN), University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Heather MorganHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Nicola CrosslandMaternal and Infant Nutrition and Nurture Unit (MAINN), University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Graeme MacLennanHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Fiona DykesMaternal and Infant Nutrition and Nurture Unit (MAINN), University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Fiona StewartHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Linda BauldDepartment of Health Policy and Social Marketing, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Marion K CampbellHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU2Chief Scientist Office NMAHP2Department of Health 10/31/02Department of Health 11/93/01Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the acceptability, mechanisms and consequences of provider incentives for smoking cessation and breast feeding as part of the Benefits of Incentives for Breastfeeding and Smoking cessation in pregnancy (BIBS) study.

designCross-sectional survey and qualitative interviews.

settingScotland and North West England.

participantsEarly years professionals: 497 survey respondents included 156 doctors; 197 health visitors/maternity staff; 144 other health staff. Qualitative interviews or focus groups were conducted with 68 pregnant/postnatal women/family members; 32 service providers; 22 experts/decision-makers; 63 conference attendees.

methodsEarly years professionals were surveyed via email about the acceptability of payments to local health services for reaching smoking cessation in pregnancy and breastfeeding targets. Agreement was measured on a 5-point scale using multivariable ordered logit models. A framework approach was used to analyse free-text survey responses and qualitative data.

resultsHealth professional net agreement for provider incentives for smoking cessation targets was 52.9% (263/497); net disagreement was 28.6% (142/497). Health visitors/maternity staff were more likely than doctors to agree: OR 2.35 (95% CI 1.51 to 3.64; p<0.001). Net agreement for provider incentives for breastfeeding targets was 44.1% (219/497) and net disagreement was 38.6% (192/497). Agreement was more likely for women (compared with men): OR 1.81 (1.09 to 3.00; p=0.023) and health visitors/maternity staff (compared with doctors): OR 2.54 (95% CI 1.65 to 3.91; p<0.001). Key emergent themes were 'moral tensions around acceptability', 'need for incentives', 'goals', 'collective or divisive action' and 'monitoring and proof'. While provider incentives can focus action and resources, tensions around the impact on relationships raised concerns. Pressure, burden of proof, gaming, box-ticking bureaucracies and health inequalities were counterbalances to potential benefits.

conclusionsProvider incentives are favoured by non-medical staff. Solutions which increase trust and collaboration towards shared goals, without negatively impacting on relationships or increasing bureaucracy are required.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelMotivationRewardAdolescentAdultBreast FeedingCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPregnancyQualitative ResearchPREVENTIVE MEDICINEPUBLIC HEALTHQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID26567253
PMCPMC4654300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.