ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2019
Incentive schemes to increase dementia diagnoses in primary care in England: a retrospective cohort study of unintended consequences.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- How does Australian primary care face dementia? Identifying current practice and barriers in dementia diagnosis and management in Australian primary care - a qualitative interview study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Article
- The Bubble of Normalisation: A Qualitative Study of Carers of People With Dementia Who Do Not Seek Help for a Diagnosis.Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology · 2022Article
- Incentivizing performance in health care: a rapid review, typology and qualitative study of unintended consequences.BMC health services research · 2022Review
- Framework for identification and measurement of spillover effects in policy implementation: intended non-intended targeted non-targeted spillovers (INTENTS).Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Time Trends in Incidence of Reported Memory Concerns and Cognitive Decline: A Cohort Study in UK Primary Care.Clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- What gets recorded, counts: dementia recording in primary care compared with a specialist database.Age and ageing · 2021Article
- The rising tide of dementia deaths: triangulation of data from three routine data sources using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.BMC geriatrics · 2021Article
- Evaluating a Memory Clinic Using the RE-AIM Model. The Experience of the "Memory and Neuropsychiatry Clinic" in Hospital Del Salvador, Chile.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Shaping a data-driven era in dementia care pathway through computational neurology approaches.BMC medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe UK government introduced two financial incentive schemes for primary care to tackle underdiagnosis in dementia: the 3-year Directed Enhanced Service 18 (DES18) and the 6-month Dementia Identification Scheme (DIS). The schemes appear to have been effective in boosting dementia diagnosis rates, but their unintended effects are unknown.
aimTo identify and quantify unintended consequences associated with the DES18 and DIS schemes. DESIGN AND
settingA retrospective cohort quantitative study of 7079 English primary care practices.
methodPotential unintended effects of financial incentive schemes, both positive and negative, were identified from a literature review. A practice-level dataset covering the period 2006/2007 to 2015/2016 was constructed. Difference-in-differences analysis was employed to test the effects of the incentive schemes on quality measures from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF); and four measures of patient experience from the GP Patient Survey (GPPS): patient-centred care, access to care, continuity of care, and the doctor-patient relationship. The researchers controlled for effects of the contemporaneous hospital incentive scheme for dementia and for practice characteristics.
resultsNational practice participation rates in DES18 and DIS were 98.5% and 76% respectively. Both schemes were associated not only with a positive impact on QOF quality outcomes, but also with negative impacts on some patient experience indicators.
conclusionThe primary care incentive schemes for dementia appear to have enhanced QOF performance for the dementia review, and have had beneficial spillover effects on QOF performance in other clinical areas. However, the schemes may have had negative impacts on several aspects of patient experience.
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.