ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Participation and Outcomes among Disabled and Non-Disabled People in the Diabetes Pay-for-Performance Program.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Enrollment in Diabetes Pay-for-Performance Program Reduced Loss of Life Expectancy in Newly-Diagnosed Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2025Article
- Exploring the Glycemic Control of Pay-for-Performance Program for Psychiatric Patients With Diabetes in Real World: A Retrospective Quasiexperimental Study.Journal of diabetes research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study's objectives were to compare the participation rates of people with and without disabilities who had type 2 diabetes in a diabetes pay-for-performance (DM P4P) program, as well as their care outcomes after participation.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study. The data came from the disability registry file, cause of death file, and national health insurance research database of Taiwan. The subjects included patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes between 2001 and 2013 who were followed up with until 2014 and categorized as disabled and non-disabled patients. The propensity score matching method was used to match the disabled with the non-disabled patients at a 1:1 ratio. Conditional logistic regression analysis was used to determine the odds ratio between the disabled and non-disabled patients who joined the P4P program. The Cox hazard model was used to compare the risk of dialysis and death between the disabled and non-disabled patients participating in the P4P program.
resultsThere were 110,645 disabled and 110,645 non-disabled individuals after matching. After controlling for confounding factors, it was found that the disabled individuals were significantly less likely (odds ratio = 0.89) to be enrolled in the P4P program than the non-disabled individuals. The risk of dialysis was 1.08 times higher for people with disabilities than those without, regardless of their participation in the P4P program. After enrollment in the P4P program, the risk of death for people with disabilities decreased from 1.32 to 1.16 times that of persons without disabilities. Among the people with disabilities, the risk of death for those enrolled in the P4P program was 0.41 times higher than that of those not enrolled. The risk of death was reduced to a greater extent for people with disabilities than for those without disabilities upon enrollment in the DM P4P program.
conclusionPeople with disabilities are less likely to be enrolled in the P4P program in Taiwan and have unequal access to care. However, the P4P program was more effective at reducing mortality among people with disabilities than among those without.
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.