Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28453713›Full record

SynthesisHealth policy and planning2017

Does charging different user fees for primary and secondary care affect first-contacts with primary healthcare? A systematic review.

Thomas Hone, John Tayu Lee, Azeem Majeed, Lesong Conteh, Christopher Millett

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health policy and planning, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Rethinking primary care user fees: is charging a fee for appointments a solution to NHS underfunding?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  10. 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.

Thomas HonePublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London.
John Tayu LeeSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore.
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London.
Lesong ContehHealth Economics Group, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London.
Christopher MillettPublic Health Policy Evaluation Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policy-makers are increasingly considering charging users different fees between primary and secondary care (differential user charges) to encourage utilisation of primary health care in health systems with limited gate keeping. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the impact of introducing differential user charges on service utilisation. We reviewed studies published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, EconLIT, HMIC, and WHO library databases from January 1990 until June 2015. We extracted data from the studies meeting defined eligibility criteria and assessed study quality using an established checklist. We synthesized evidence narratively. Eight studies from six countries met our eligibility criteria. The overall study quality was low, with diversity in populations, interventions, settings, and methods. Five studies examined the introduction of or increase in user charges for secondary care, with four showing decreased secondary care utilisation, and three showing increased primary care utilisation. One study identified an increase in primary care utilisation after primary care user charges were reduced. The introduction of a non-referral charge in secondary care was associated with lower primary care utilisation in one study. One study compared user charges across insurance plans, associating higher charges in secondary care with higher utilisation in both primary and secondary care. Overall, the impact of introducing differential user-charges on primary care utilisation remains uncertain. Further research is required to understand their impact as a demand side intervention, including implications for health system costs and on utilisation among low-income patients.

Indexed as

Fees and ChargesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInsurance, HealthPrimary Health CareSecondary Health CarePrimary healthcaresystematic reviewuser fees

Identifiers

PMID28453713
PMCPMC5886159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.