Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29851169›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of geriatric psychiatry2018

Investigating the impact of primary care payments on underdiagnosis in dementia: A difference-in-differences analysis.

Anne Mason, Dan Liu, Panagiotis Kasteridis, Maria Goddard, Rowena Jacobs, Raphael Wittenberg, Gerard McGonigal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Incentive schemes to increase dementia diagnoses in primary care in England: a retrospective cohort study of unintended consequences.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  8. 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.

Anne MasonCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5823-3064
Dan LiuCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Panagiotis KasteridisCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Maria GoddardCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Rowena JacobsCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Raphael WittenbergPersonal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Gerard McGonigalDepartment of Medicine for the Elderly, York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, York, North Yorkshire, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn England, two primary care incentive schemes were introduced to increase dementia diagnosis rates to two-thirds of expected levels. This study assesses the effectiveness of these schemes.

methodsWe used a difference-in-differences framework to analyse the individual and collective impacts of the incentive schemes: (1) Directed Enhanced Service 18 (DES18: facilitating timely diagnosis of and support for dementia) and (2) the Dementia Identification Scheme (DIS). The dataset included 7529 English general practices, of which 7142 were active throughout the 10-year study period (April 2006 to March 2016). We controlled for a range of factors, including a contemporaneous hospital incentive scheme for dementia. Our dependent variable was the percentage of expected cases that was recorded on practice dementia registers (the "rate").

resultsFrom March 2013 to March 2016, the mean rate rose from 51.8% to 68.6%. Both DES18 and DIS had positive and significant effects. In practices participating in the DES18 scheme, the rate increased by 1.44 percentage points more than the rate for non-participants; DIS had a larger effect, with an increase of 3.59 percentage points. These combined effects increased dementia registers nationally by an estimated 40 767 individuals. Had all practices fully participated in both schemes, the corresponding number would have been 48 685.

conclusionThe primary care incentive schemes appear to have been effective in closing the gap between recorded and expected prevalence of dementia, but the hospital scheme had no additional discernible effect. This study contributes additional evidence that financial incentives can motivate improved performance in primary care.

Indexed as

DementiaDiagnostic ErrorsEnglandGeneral PracticeHumansPhysician Incentive PlansQuality ImprovementRegression AnalysisReimbursement, IncentiveState Medicinedementiaincentiveprimary health carereimbursement

Identifiers

PMID29851169
PMCPMC6704384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.