ArticleBMJ open2018
Risk selection in primary care: a cross-sectional fixed effect analysis of Swedish individual data.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ex ante evaluation of risk adjustment models for prospective provider payment: a conceptual framework and empirical application.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Empowering Patients, Preventing Strokes: Knowledge of Risk Factors and Associated Factors, Prevention Strategies, and Treatment Awareness Among Chronic Disease Patients in Southern Ethiopia.Behavioural neurology · 2026Article
- A Framework for the Design of Risk-Adjustment Models in Health care Provider Payment Systems.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2025Review
- Evaluating the impact of the 2010 Swedish choice reform in primary health care on avoidable hospitalization and socioeconomic inequities: an interrupted time series analysis using register data.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Income-based differences in healthcare utilization in relation to mortality in the Swedish population between 2004-2017: A nationwide register study.PLoS medicine · 2023Article
- Fifteen years with patient choice and free establishment in Swedish primary healthcare: what do we know?Scandinavian journal of public health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess socioeconomic differences between patients registered with private and public primary healthcare centres.
designPopulation-based cross-sectional study controlling for municipality and household.
settingSwedish population-based socioeconomic data collected from Statistics Sweden linked with individual registration data from all 21 Swedish regions.
participantsAll individuals residing in Sweden on 31 December 2015 (n=9 851 017) were included in the study. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Registration with private versus public primary healthcare centres.
resultsAfter controlling for municipality and household, individuals with higher socioeconomic status were more likely to be registered with a private primary healthcare provider. Individuals in the highest income quantile were 4.9 percentage points (13.7%) more likely to be registered with a private primary healthcare provider compared with individuals in the lowest income quantile. Individuals with 1-3 years of higher education were 4.7 percentage points more likely to be registered with a private primary healthcare provider compared with those with an incomplete primary education.
conclusionsThe results show that there are notable differences in registration patterns, indicating a skewed distribution of patients and health risks between private and public primary healthcare providers. This suggests that risk selection behaviour occurs in the reformed Swedish primary healthcare system, foremost through location patterns.
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.