Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30803980›Full record

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.

Dan Liu, Emily Green, Panagiotis Kasteridis, Maria Goddard, Rowena Jacobs, Raphael Wittenberg, Anne Mason

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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.

Dan LiuCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York.
Emily GreenDepartment of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, York.
Panagiotis KasteridisCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York.
Maria GoddardCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York.
Rowena JacobsCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York.
Raphael WittenbergPersonal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.
Anne MasonCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

DementiaPrimary Health CareContinuity of Patient CareEnglandHumansOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient PreferencePhysician Incentive PlansPhysician-Patient RelationsQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality ImprovementReimbursement, IncentiveRetrospective Studiesdementiaincentivesprimary health careprogramme evaluationreimbursement

Identifiers

PMID30803980
PMCPMC6400615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.