ArticleHealth economics review2016
Heterogeneity in general practitioners' preferences for quality improvement programs: a choice experiment and policy simulation in France.
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 8 papers, 3 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Pooled it
- Application of discrete choice experiments to enhance stakeholder engagement as a strategy for advancing implementation: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2017Pooled it
- Incentive affects physicians' willingness to continue participating in urban-rural medical consortia: a comparative study of county and provincial hospitals in Central China.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Public Heterogeneous Preferences for Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Service Delivery in Western China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Public Preferences for Exit Strategies From COVID-19 Lockdown in Germany-A Discrete Choice Experiment.International journal of public health · 2021Article
- Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals.Health economics review · 2020Review
- Public preferences for primary care provision in Germany - a discrete choice experiment.BMC family practice · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite increasing popularity, quality improvement programs (QIP) have had modest and variable impacts on enhancing the quality of physician practice. We investigate the heterogeneity of physicians' preferences as a potential explanation of these mixed results in France, where the national voluntary QIP - the CAPI - has been cancelled due to its unpopularity. We rely on a discrete choice experiment to elicit heterogeneity in physicians' preferences for the financial and non-financial components of QIP. Using mixed and latent class logit models, results show that the two models should be used in concert to shed light on different aspects of the heterogeneity in preferences. In particular, the mixed logit demonstrates that heterogeneity in preferences is concentrated on the pay-for-performance component of the QIP, while the latent class model shows that physicians can be grouped in four homogeneous groups with specific preference patterns. Using policy simulation, we compare the French CAPI with other possible QIPs, and show that the majority of the physician subgroups modelled dislike the CAPI, while favouring a QIP using only non-financial interventions. We underline the importance of modelling preference heterogeneity in designing and implementing QIPs.
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.