Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27561993›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2016

Patient experiences with family medicine: a longitudinal study after the Dutch health care reforms in 2006.

Pieter van den Hombergh, Arna van Doorn-Klomberg, Stephen Campbell, Michel Wensing, Jozé Braspenning

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Pieter van den HomberghScientific Institute for Quality in Healthcare (IQhealth care), Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Arna van Doorn-KlombergMaster Physician Assistant, HAN University of Applied Sciences, PO Box 9029, Nijmegen, 6500 JK, The Netherlands.
Stephen CampbellCentre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Michel WensingScientific Institute for Quality in Healthcare (IQhealth care), Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands.
Jozé BraspenningScientific Institute for Quality in Healthcare (IQhealth care), Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands. Joze.Braspenning@radboudumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2006 The Dutch Health Care system changed to a market oriented system. The GP remuneration changed from ± 2/3 capitation patients and 1/3 private patients before 2006 to a mixed payment scheme. From 2006 onward every patient was insured and the GP received partly capitation, partly fees for consultations and for specific services. This change coincided with many other organisational changes in General Practice care. Our research question was if during the years after 2006 patient experiences of Dutch family practice had changed. We also wanted to explore the influence of patient and practice characteristics on patient experiences. Data on patient experiences were available from 2007 to 2012.

methodIn a series of annual cross sectional patient surveys the performance of GPs and practices was measured. Patient sampling took place as a part of the Dutch accreditation program in 1657 practices involving 2966 GPs. Patients' experiences, gender, age, health status, and number of annual consultations were documented as well as the type and location of practices. Linear regression analysis was used to examine time trends in patient experiences and the impact of patient and practice characteristics.

results78,985 patients assessed the performance of 2966 GPs, and 45,773 patients assessed the organisation of 1657 practices. The number of patients with positive experiences increased significantly between 2007 and 2012; respectively 4.8 % for GPs (beta 0.20 and p < 0.0001) and 6.6 % for practices (beta 0.10, p < 0.004). Higher age, having no chronic illness, more frequent consultations and attending single-handed practices, predicted better patient experiences.

conclusionsIn our evaluation of patient experiences with general practice care from 2007 to 2012 we found an increase of 4.8 % for GPs and 6.6 % for practices respectively. This improvement is significant. While no direct causation can be made, possible explanations may be found in the various reforms in Dutch family practice since 2006. More insight is needed into key determinants of this improvement before policymakers and care providers can attribute the improvement to these reforms.

Indexed as

Health Care ReformAdultAgedAge FactorsChronic DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesFamily PracticeFemaleGroup PracticeHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOffice VisitsPatient SatisfactionHealth care reformInvestment in Family MedicinePatient experiencePayment systemPractice performancePrimary careQuality of care

Identifiers

PMID27561993
PMCPMC5000412

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.