ArticleAtencion primaria2019
[Public, private or third sector management? Differences in the results in Primary Care in Catalonia].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
goalCompare the performance of primary health centers managed by the public sector (ICS), the third sector (Hospitals) or by small private organizations known as EBAs.
designMultidimensional comparative analysis. We follow a quasi-experimental logic comparing primary health centers managed by EBAs with other centers managed by the public sector (ICS) o by the third sector (hospitals). LOCALIZATION: Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
participantsWe have 368 observations (primary health centers) and 18 indicators measured in 2015.
interventionDifferent management models (public, third sector, private). MAIN MEASURES: We compare activity measures, measures of effectiveness in the process of medical assistance, and efficiency. We compare before and after controlling for the socio-economic level corresponding to the basic health area and the characteristics of the population and health region. We conduct a test of significant differences between the indicators corresponding to centers managed differently, after a process of matching using key variables and Propensity Score Matching.
resultsSignificant differences in the measure of work load for family doctors, in five measures of effectiveness in the process of assistance and in the cost per user.
conclusionsThe diversity in the management model through EBAs shows results that can be interpreted in favor of the maintenance or the expansion of this model of management. The majority of EBAs have been implanted in areas of a medium or high level, but their results are still significantly positive once the socio economic level of the area is controlled.
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.