ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2016
How do individuals' health behaviours respond to an increase in the supply of health care? Evidence from a natural experiment.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance programme on quality of primary care: systematic review with quantitative synthesis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Pooled it
- Strategies to improve the implementation of preventive care in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Implementation strategies to increase smoking cessation treatment provision in primary care: a systematic review of observational studies.BMC primary care · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of UK provider financial incentives on quality of care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The efficacy of the management of long-term conditions depends in part on whether healthcare and health behaviours are complements or substitutes in the health production function. On the one hand, individuals might believe that improved health care can raise the marginal productivity of their own health behaviour and decide to complement health care with additional effort in healthier behaviours. On the other hand, health care can lower the cost of unhealthy behaviours by compensating for their negative effects. Individuals may therefore reduce their effort in healthier lifestyles. Identifying which of these effects prevails is complicated by the endogenous nature of treatment decisions and individuals' behavioural responses. We explore whether the introduction in 2004 of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a financial incentive for family doctors to improve the quality of healthcare, affected the population's weight, smoking and drinking behaviours by applying a sharp regression discontinuity design to a sample of 32,102 individuals in the Health Survey for England (1997-2009). We find that individuals with the targeted health conditions improved their lifestyle behaviours. This complementarity was only statistically significant for smoking, which reduced by 0.7 cigarettes per person per day, equal to 18% of the mean. We investigate whether this change was attributable to the QOF by testing for other discontinuity points, including the introduction of a smoking ban in 2007 and changes to the QOF in 2006. We also examine whether medication and smoking cessation advice are potential mechanisms and find no statistically significant discontinuities for these aspects of health care supply. Our results suggest that a general improvement in healthcare generated by provider incentives can have positive unplanned effects on patients' behaviours.
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.