Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28506224›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Funding and remuneration of interdisciplinary primary care teams in Canada: a conceptual framework and application.

W Dominika Wranik, Susan M Haydt, Alan Katz, Adrian R Levy, Maryna Korchagina, Jeanette M Edwards, Ian Bower

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Alternative payment models: A path forward.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2021
    Article
  14. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

W Dominika WranikSchool of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. dwl@dal.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-7318-3886
Susan M HaydtFaculty of Management, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Alan KatzDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Department of Family Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Adrian R LevyDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Maryna KorchaginaProvider Compensation and Strategic Partnership Branch, Alberta Health, Edmonton, Canada.
Jeanette M EdwardsPrimary Health Care and Chronic Disease, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, Winnipeg, Canada.
Ian BowerPrimary Care, Nova Scotia Department of Health and Wellness, Halifax, Canada.
Dalhousie University · CAAlberta Health · CANova Scotia Health Authority · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CAWinnipeg Regional Health Authority · CA

Funding

CIHR HRA-126900
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReliance on interdisciplinary teams in the delivery of primary care is on the rise. Funding bodies strive to design financial environments that support collaboration between providers. At present, the design of financial arrangements has been fragmented and not based on evidence. The root of the problem is a lack of systematic evidence demonstrating the superiority of any particular financial arrangement, or a solid understanding of options. In this study we develop a framework for the conceptualization and analysis of financial arrangements in interdisciplinary primary care teams.

methodsWe use qualitative data from three sources: (i) interviews with 19 primary care decision makers representing 215 clinics in three Canadian provinces, (ii) a research roundtable with 14 primary care decision makers and/or researchers, and (iii) policy documents. Transcripts from interviews and the roundtable were coded thematically and a framework synthesis approach was applied.

resultsOur conceptual framework differentiates between team level funding and provider level remuneration, and characterizes the interplay and consonance between them. Particularly the notions of hierarchy, segregation, and dependence of provider incomes, and the link between funding and team activities are introduced as new clarifying concepts, and their implications explored. The framework is applied to the analysis of collaboration incentives, which appear strongest when provider incomes are interdependent, funding is linked to the team as a whole, and accountability does not have multiple lines. Emergent implementation issues discussed by respondents include: (i) centrality of budget negotiations; (ii) approaches to patient rostering; (iii) unclear funding sources for space and equipment; and (iv) challenges with community engagement. The creation of patient rosters is perceived as a surprisingly contentious issue, and the challenges of funding for space and equipment remain unresolved.

conclusionsThe development and application of a conceptual framework is an important step to the systematic study of the best performing financial models in the context of interdisciplinary primary care. The identification of optimal financial arrangements must be contextualized in terms of feasibility and the implementation environment. In general, financial hierarchy, both overt and covert, is considered a barrier to collaboration.

Indexed as

RemunerationCanadaCooperative BehaviorHumansInterviews as TopicNational Health ProgramsPatient Care TeamPhysicians, Primary CarePrimary Care NursingPrimary Health CareResearch Personnel

Identifiers

PMID28506224
PMCPMC5433058
OpenAlexW2615119634

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.