Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27271177›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2016

Efficiency of Ontario primary care physicians across payment models: a stochastic frontier analysis.

Maude Laberge, Walter P Wodchis, Jan Barnsley, Audrey Laporte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Primary care of mothers and infants by the same or different physicians: a population-based cohort study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Maude LabergeDepartment of Health Services Research, Management and Policy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, 1225 Center Dr, Room 3111, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA. maude.laberge@phhp.ufl.edu.
Walter P WodchisCanadian Centre for Health Economics, Toronto, Canada.
Jan BarnsleyInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Audrey LaporteCanadian Centre for Health Economics, Toronto, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe study examines the relationship between the primary care model that a physician belongs to and the efficiency of the primary care physician in Ontario, Canada.

methodsSurvey data were collected from 183 self-selected physicians and linked to administrative databases to capture the provision of services to the patients served for the 12 month period ending June 30, 2013, and the characteristics of the patients at the beginning of the study period. Two stochastic frontier regression models were used to estimate efficiency scores and parameters for two separate outputs: the number of distinct patients seen and the number of visits.

resultsBecause of missing data, only 165 physicians were included in the analyses. The average efficiency was 0.72 for both outputs with scores varying from 4 % to 93 % for the visits and 5 % to 94 % for the number of patients seen. We observed that there were both very low and very high efficiency scores within each model. These variations were larger than variations in average scores across models.

Indexed as

EfficiencyFrontier analysisPhysician remunerationPrimary careProductivity

Identifiers

PMID27271177
PMCPMC4894855

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.