Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34003386›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2021

Analytical methods to assess the impacts of activity-based funding (ABF): a scoping review.

Gintare Valentelyte, Conor Keegan, Jan Sorensen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Country-level effects of diagnosis-related groups: evidence from Germany's comprehensive reform of hospital payments.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
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

3 authors.

Gintare ValentelyteStructured Population and Health services Research Education (SPHeRE) Programme, Division of Population Health Sciences, Mercer Street Lower, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. gintarevalentelyte@rcsi.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9188-3854
Conor KeeganEconomic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Whitaker Square, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1367-1156
Jan SorensenHealthcare Outcome Research Centre (HORC), Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0857-9267

Funding

Health Research Board SPHeRE-2018-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundActivity-Based Funding (ABF) has been implemented across many countries as a means to incentivise efficient hospital care delivery and resource use. Previous reviews have assessed the impact of ABF implementation on a range of outcomes across health systems. However, no comprehensive review of the methods used to generate this evidence has been undertaken. The aim of this review is to identify and assess the analytical methods employed in research on ABF hospital performance outcomes.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Five academic databases and reference lists of included studies were used to identify studies assessing the impact of ABF on hospital performance outcomes. Peer-reviewed quantitative studies published between 2000 and 2019 considering ABF implementation outside the U.S. were included. Qualitative studies, policy discussions and commentaries were excluded. Abstracts and full text studies were double screened to ensure consistency. All analytical approaches and their relative strengths and weaknesses were charted and summarised.

resultsWe identified 19 studies that assessed hospital performance outcomes from introduction of ABF in England, Korea, Norway, Portugal, Israel, the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Japan, Belgium, China, and Austria. Quasi-experimental methods were used across most reviewed studies. The most commonly used assessment methods were different forms of interrupted time series analyses. Few studies used difference-in-differences or similar methods to compare outcome changes over time relative to comparator groups. The main hospital performance outcome measures examined were case numbers, length of stay, mortality and readmission.

conclusionsNon-experimental study designs continue to be the most widely used method in the assessment of ABF impacts. Quasi-experimental approaches examining the impact of ABF implementation on outcomes relative to comparator groups not subject to the reform should be applied where possible to facilitate identification of effects. These approaches provide a more robust evidence-base for informing future financing reform and policy.

Indexed as

Activity-based fundingAnalytical methodologyHospital fundingHospital performanceOutcomes

Identifiers

PMID34003386
PMCPMC8132407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.