Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27716250›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2016

The impact of reimbursement systems on equity in access and quality of primary care: A systematic literature review.

Wenjing Tao, Janne Agerholm, Bo Burström

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. General practice incentives: a review of the international literature.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Effects of pay-for-performance for primary care physicians on diabetes outcomes in single-payer health systems: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Will blended family physician payment models revive primary care in Canada?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wenjing TaoCentre for Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Stockholm County Council Health Services, Stockholm, Sweden. wenjing.tao@ki.se.
Janne AgerholmCentre for Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Stockholm County Council Health Services, Stockholm, Sweden.
Bo BurströmCentre for Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Stockholm County Council Health Services, Stockholm, Sweden.
Stockholm County Council · SEKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReimbursement systems provide incentives to health care providers and may drive physician behaviour. This review assesses the impact of reimbursement system on socioeconomic and racial inequalities in access, utilization and quality of primary care.

methodsA systematic search was performed in Web of Science and PubMed for English language studies published between 1980 and 2013, supplemented by reference tracking. Articles were selected based on inclusion criteria, and data extraction and critical appraisal were performed by two authors independently. Data were synthesized in a narrative manner and categorized according to study outcome and reimbursement system.

resultsTwenty seven articles, mostly from the United States and United Kingdom, were included in the data synthesis. Reimbursement systems seem to have limited effect on socioeconomic and racial inequity in access, utilization and quality of primary care. Capitation might have a more beneficial impact on inequity in access to primary care and number of ambulatory care sensitive admissions than fee-for-service, but did worse in patient satisfaction. Pay-for-performance had little or no impact on socioeconomic and racial inequity in the management of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and preventive services.

conclusionWe found little scientific evidence supporting an association between reimbursement system and socioeconomic or racial inequity in access, utilization and quality of primary care. Overall, few studies addressed this research question, and heterogeneity in context and outcomes complicates comparisons across studies. Further empirical studies are warranted.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareFee-for-Service PlansHealthcare DisparitiesHealth EquityHealth Services AccessibilityHospitalizationHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient SatisfactionPrimary Health CareReimbursement, IncentiveUnited KingdomUnited StatesCapitation feeEthnic groupsHealthcare disparitiesHealth policyHealth services accessibilityInequalityOutcome assessmentQuality of health careReimbursement mechanismsSocioeconomic factors

Identifiers

PMID27716250
PMCPMC5050924
OpenAlexW2528236474

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.