Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35393354›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2023

Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis.

Michael Anderson, Aoife Molloy, Laia Maynou, Ilias Kyriopoulos, Alistair McGuire, Elias Mossialos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael AndersonDepartment of Health Policy, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK M.Anderson5@lse.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8454-4640
Aoife MolloyHealth Inequalities Improvement Programme, NHS England, London, UK.
Laia MaynouDepartment of Health Policy, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Ilias KyriopoulosDepartment of Health Policy, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Alistair McGuireDepartment of Health Policy, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Elias MossialosDepartment of Health Policy, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8664-9297

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe NHS England evidence-based interventions programme (EBI), launched in April 2019, is a novel nationally led initiative to encourage disinvestment in low value care.

methodWe sought to evaluate the effectiveness of this policy by using a difference-in-difference approach to compare changes in volume between January 2016 and February 2020 in a treatment group of low value procedures against a control group unaffected by the EBI programme during our period of analysis but subsequently identified as candidates for disinvestment.

resultsWe found only small differences between the treatment and control group after implementation, with reductions in volumes in the treatment group 0.10% (95% CI 0.09% to 0.11%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 16 low value procedures per month). During the month of implementation, reductions in volumes in the treatment group were 0.05% (95% CI 0.03% to 0.06%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 7 low value procedures). Using triple difference estimators, we found that reductions in volumes were 0.35% (95% CI 0.26% to 0.44%) larger in NHS hospitals than independent sector providers (equivalent to 47 low value procedures per month). We found no significant differences between clinical commissioning groups that did or did not volunteer to be part of a demonstrator community to trial EBI guidance, but found reductions in volume were 0.06% (95% CI 0.04% to 0.08%) larger in clinical commissioning groups that posted a deficit in the financial year 2018/19 before implementation (equivalent to 4 low value procedures per month).

conclusionsOur analysis shows that the EBI programme did not accelerate disinvestment for procedures under its remit during our period of analysis. However, we find that financial and organisational factors may have had some influence on the degree of responsiveness to the EBI programme.

Indexed as

HospitalsState MedicineCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandEvidence-Based MedicineHumansfinancial incentiveshealth policyquality improvementsurgery

Identifiers

PMID35393354
PMCPMC9887378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.