Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27585031›Full record

ArticleHealthcare policy = Politiques de sante2016

Financial Incentives and Cervical Cancer Screening Participation in Ontario's Primary Care Practice Models.

Ciara Pendrith, Amardeep Thind, Gregory S Zaric, Sisira Sarma

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. A roadmap for a comprehensive control of cervical cancer in Poland: integration of available solutions into current practice in primary and secondary prevention.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2020
    Review
  6. 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.

Ciara PendrithDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON.
Amardeep ThindDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, Schulich Interfaculty Program in Public Health, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON.
Gregory S ZaricIvey School of Business, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON.
Sisira SarmaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe primary objective of this paper is to compare cervical cancer screening rates of family physicians in Ontario's two dominant reformed practice models, Family Health Group (FHG) and Family Health Organization (FHO), and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) model. Both reformed models formally enrol patients and offer extensive pay-for-performance incentives; however, they differ by remuneration for core services (FHG is FFS; FHO is capitated). The secondary objective is to estimate the average and marginal costs of screening in each model.

methodsUsing administrative data on 7,298 family physicians and their 2,083,633 female patients aged 35-69 eligible for cervical cancer screening in 2011, we assessed screening rates after adjusting for patient and physician characteristics. Predicted screening rates, fees and bonus payments were used to estimate the average and marginal costs of cervical cancer screening.

resultsAdjusted screening rates were highest in the FHG (81.9%), followed by the FHO (79.6%), and then the traditional FFS model (74.2%). The cost of a cervical cancer screening was $18.30 in the FFS model. The estimated average cost of screening in the FHGs and FHOs were $29.71 and $35.02, respectively, while the corresponding marginal costs were $33.05 and $39.06. DISCUSSION: We found significant differences in cervical cancer screening rates across Ontario's primary care practice models. Cervical screening rates were significantly higher in practice models eligible for incentives (FHGs and FHOs) than the traditional FFS model. However, the average and marginal cost of screening were lowest in the traditional FFS model and highest in the FHOs.

Indexed as

MotivationAdultEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOntarioPrimary Health CareReimbursement, IncentiveUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27585031
PMCPMC5008136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.