Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2022
The Effect of Financial Incentives on Quality Measures in the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus: a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Association of Economic Policies With Hypertension Management and Control: A Systematic Review.JAMA health forum · 2024Pooled it
- The impact of performance-based capitation on diabetes care: Evidence from Indonesia's national health insurance program.International journal of health economics and management · 2026Article
- Frailty-Informed Deprescribing of Glucose-Lowering Therapy in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Pragmatic Clinical Framework.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Article
- We Should Pay More Attention to Cross-sectoral Cooperation, Incentives and Practice-Oriented Evaluation Comment on "The Effect of Integrated Care After Discharge From Hospitals on Outcomes Among Korean Older Adults".International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
- Acceptability of Components for a Mandatory Quality Improvement Framework: A Survey Among Swiss General Practitioners.Health services insights · 2025Article
- Article
- Does the implementation of an incentive scheme increase adherence to diabetes guidelines? A retrospective cohort study of managed care enrollees.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Estimated impact from the withdrawal of primary care financial incentives on selected indicators of quality of care in Scotland: controlled interrupted time series analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Long-Term Effects of Financial Incentives for General Practitioners on Quality Indicators in the Treatment of Patients With Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Care-A Follow-Up Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Parallel Controlled Trial.Frontiers in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFinancial incentives are often used to improve quality of care in chronic care patients. However, the evidence concerning the effect of financial incentives is still inconclusive.
objectiveTo test the effect of financial incentives on quality measures (QMs) in the treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus in primary care. We incentivized a clinical QM and a process QM to test the effect of financial incentives on different types of QMs and to investigate the spill-over effect on non-incentivized QMs. DESIGN/
participantsParallel cluster randomized controlled trial based on electronic medical records database involving Swiss general practitioners (GPs). Practices were randomly allocated.
interventionAll participants received a bimonthly feedback report. The intervention group additionally received potential financial incentives on GP level depending on their performance. MAIN MEASURES: Between-group differences in proportions of patients fulfilling incentivized QM (process QM of annual HbA1c measurement and clinical QM of blood pressure level below 140/95 mmHg) after 12 months. KEY
resultsSeventy-one GPs (median age 52 years, 72% male) from 43 different practices and subsequently 3838 patients with diabetes mellitus (median age 70 years, 57% male) were included. Proportions of patients with annual HbA1c measurements remained unchanged (intervention group decreased from 79.0 to 78.3%, control group from 81.5 to 81.0%, OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.90-1.32, p = 0.39). Proportions of patients with blood pressure below 140/95 improved from 49.9 to 52.5% in the intervention group and decreased from 51.2 to 49.0% in the control group (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99-1.36, p = 0.06). Proportions of non-incentivized process QMs increased significantly in the intervention group.
conclusionGP level financial incentives did not result in more frequent HbA1c measurements or in improved blood pressure control. Interestingly, we could confirm a spill-over effect on non-incentivized process QMs. Yet, the mechanism of spill-over effects of financial incentives is largely unclear.
trial registrationISRCTN13305645.
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.