ArticleHealth economics2017
Productivity Growth in the English National Health Service from 1998/1999 to 2013/2014.
Article in Health economics, 2017. 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.
- Workload and short sickness absences in a cohort of Finnish hospital employees.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Article
- Extending mechanical thrombectomy service provision to 24/7: a break-even analysis.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy.Applied health economics and health policy · 2022Review
- Assessing Productivity Development of Public Hospitals: A Case Study of Shanghai, China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Can productivity growth measures identify best performing hospitals? Evidence from the English National Health Service.Health economics · 2019Article
- Productivity Growth in the English National Health Service from 1998/1999 to 2013/2014.Health economics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Productivity growth is a key measure against which National Health Service (NHS) achievements are judged. We measure NHS productivity growth as a set of paired year-on-year comparisons from 1998/1999-1999/2000 through 2012/2013-2013/2014, which are converted into a chained index that summarises productivity growth over the entire period. Our measure is as comprehensive as data permit and accounts for the multitude of diverse outputs and inputs involved in the production process and for regular revisions to the data used to quantify outputs and inputs. Over the full-time period, NHS output increased by 88.96% and inputs by 81.58%, delivering overall total factor productivity growth of 4.07%. Productivity growth was negative during the first two terms of Blair's government, with average yearly growth rate of -1.01% per annum (pa) during the first term (to 2000/2001) and -1.49% pa during the second term (2000/2001-2004/2005). Productivity growth was positive under Blair's third term (2004/2005-2007/2008) at 1.41% pa and under the Brown government (2007/2008-2010/2011), averaging 1.13% pa. Productivity growth remained positive under the Coalition (2010/2011-2013/2014), averaging 1.56% pa. © 2016 The Authors Health Economics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
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.