ArticleThe British journal of surgery2023
Changes in publicly and privately funded care in England following a national programme to reduce provision of low-value elective surgery.
Article in The British journal of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- National adoption of robotic-assisted surgery in the United Kingdom: a decade of growth, distribution and speciality trends (2014-2024).Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Ethical aspects of waiting lists in neurosurgery.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Review
- Distribution and quality of privately-funded general practices in England: a cross-sectional analysis.BJGP open · 2026Article
- Patient outcomes, efficiency, and adverse events for elective hip and knee replacement in private and NHS hospitals: a population-based cohort study in England.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study assessed whether there is an association between changes in publicly and privately funded care for procedures classified as low value by the National Health Service (NHS) in England following implementation of the Evidence-Based Intervention (EBI) programme. Category 1 procedures should not be conducted and are no longer reimbursed by the NHS. Category 2 procedures are only reimbursed by the NHS in certain circumstances.
methodsChanges in volumes of publicly and privately funded procedures per month in 2019-2020 compared with the previous year were analysed in private hospitals and local healthcare markets, and adjusted for volume of procedures and patient case mix including age, sex, co-morbidities, and deprivation. Supplementary analyses focused on the self-pay and insurance funding mechanisms.
resultsThere was a statistically significant association between changes in publicly and privately funded care for category 2 procedures at the hospital (-0.19, 95 per cent c.i. -0.25 to -0.12) and local healthcare market level of analysis (-0.24, -0.32 to -0.15). A statistically significant association for category 1 procedures only existed at the hospital level of analysis (-0.19, -0.30 to -0.08). Findings were similar for patients accessing care through self-pay and insurance funding mechanisms.
conclusionStronger associations between changes in publicly and privately funded care for category 2 procedures may exist as they are clinically indicated in certain circumstances. Reductions in publicly funded care were likely a combined result of the EBI programme and growing NHS waiting lists, whereas increases in privately funded care were influenced by both patient and supplier-induced demand.
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.