ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2016
Is the distribution of care quality provided under pay-for-performance equitable? Evidence from the Advancing Quality programme in England.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing demographic access to hip replacement surgery in the United Kingdom: a systematic review.International journal for equity in health · 2021Pooled it
- Does pay for performance affect socioeconomic inequalities in access? Evidence from hospital specialised care in England.Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic inequalities in the quality of primary care under Brazil's national pay-for-performance programme: a longitudinal study of family health teams.The Lancet. Global health · 2021Article
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
backgroundThe limited number of existing previous studies of the distribution of quality under NHS Pay-for-performance (P4P) by income deprivation have not analysed the relationship at the individual level and have been restricted to assessing P4P in the primary care setting. In this study, we set out to examine how achievement of P4P 'quality measures' for which NHS hospitals were paid was distributed by income deprivation.
methodsDesign: Retrospective analysis of performance data reported by hospitals, examining how the probability of receiving 23 indicators varied by patients' area deprivation using logistic regression controlling for age and gender. SAMPLE: We use anonymised observational data on 73,002 patients admitted to hospitals in the North West of England between October 2008 and March 2010 for the following five reasons: acute myocardial infarction; coronary artery bypass grafting; heart failure; hip and knee replacement; and pneumonia.
resultsThe relationship between quality and deprivation varies depending on the point of delivery in the treatment pathway, and on whether delivered for conditions in scheduled or unscheduled care. For diagnostic tests on arrival, receipt of quality was: pro-rich in scheduled care and pro-poor in unscheduled care. Receipt of quality was pro-poor for pre-surgery measures in scheduled care. Receipt of quality at discharge was pro-rich.
conclusionUnlike in primary care, in secondary care quality is not systemically distributed by income deprivation under P4P. Whilst improvements in health inequalities are important system objectives; they may not necessarily be achieved by the adoption of P4P schemes in hospitals.
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.