Observational studyThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2018
Influence of financial and reputational incentives on primary care performance: a longitudinal study.
Observational study in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06829589 (Assessment of the Retrieval of Economic Incentives and Information Provision on Quality-of-care Indicators for Primary Care Professionals), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Assessment of the Retrieval of Economic Incentives and Information Provision on Quality-of-care Indicators for Primary Care Professionals
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance programme on quality of primary care: systematic review with quantitative synthesis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Pooled it
- What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review.BMJ open quality · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Financial incentives and information provision for post-pandemic primary care quality recovery: a longitudinal study in Catalonia.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Practitioners' views on the measurement and management of postural hypotension in general practice: a qualitative inquiry.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Acceptability of Components for a Mandatory Quality Improvement Framework: A Survey Among Swiss General Practitioners.Health services insights · 2025Article
- Incentive affects physicians' willingness to continue participating in urban-rural medical consortia: a comparative study of county and provincial hospitals in Central China.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Information provision and financial incentives in Catalonia's public primary care (2010-2019): an interrupted time series analysis.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- How do family doctors respond to reduced waiting times for cancer diagnosis in secondary care?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Article
- Impact of prevention in primary care on costs in primary and secondary care for people with serious mental illness.Health economics · 2023Article
- What do primary care staff know and do about blood borne virus testing and care for migrant patients? A national survey.BMC public health · 2021Article
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
backgroundThe Quality and Outcomes Framework has generated reputational as well as financial rewards for general practices because the number of quality points a practice receives is publicly reported. These rewards vary across diseases and practices, and over time.
aimTo determine the relative effects on performance of the financial and reputational rewards resulting from a pay-for-performance programme. DESIGN AND
settingObservational study of the published performance on 42 indicators of 8929 practices in England between 2004 and 2013.
methodThe authors calculated the revenue offered (financial reward, measured in £100s) and the points offered (reputational reward) per additional patient treated for each indicator for each practice in each year. Fixed-effects multivariable regression models were used to estimate whether the percentage of eligible patients treated responded to changes in these financial and reputational rewards.
resultsBoth the offered financial rewards and reputational rewards had small but statistically significant associations with practice performance. The effect of the financial reward on performance decreased from 0.797 percentage points per £100 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.614 to 0.979) in 2004, to 0.092 (95% CI = 0.045 to 0.138) in 2013. The effect of the reputational reward increased from -0.121 percentage points per quality point (95% CI = -0.220 to -0.022) in 2004, to 0.209 (95% CI = 0.147 to 0.271) in 2013.
conclusionIn the short term, general practices were more sensitive to revenue than reputational rewards. In the long term, general practices appeared to divert their focus towards the reputational reward, once benchmarks of performance became established.
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.