ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2024
A Multi-dimensional Framework of Valued Output for Primary Care in England.
Review in Applied health economics and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Improving efficiency and productivity are key aspects to ensure that general practices in England can meet the needs of a growing population with increasingly demanding and costly healthcare needs. However, current evidence on the efficiency and productivity of general practices is weak, partly due to suboptimal approaches to measure their 'valued' output. To overcome this limitation, this paper presents a multi-dimensional framework and indicators of valued output from the healthcare decision-maker's perspective. We identified existing primary care performance frameworks through a targeted literature review. We reviewed the frameworks and selected the dimensions relating to the impact on patients' health outcomes, corresponding with the definition of 'valued' output from the healthcare decision-maker perspective. For each dimension, we reviewed the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evidence base and guidance on best practice to develop indicators of valued output. Clinical experts and representatives of the main primary care stakeholders reviewed and validated the framework's comprehensiveness and development process. Based on a review of three existing frameworks, we synthesised a multi-dimensional output framework comprising 13 dimensions for significant primary care-related conditions and services and 51 indicators of valued output. Each indicator of valued output measures a healthcare episode and the resulting impact on patient's health. The multi-dimensional framework and indicators provide a theoretical tool to improve the measurement of primary care output in economic efficiency and productivity studies. Future research should explore the measurability of the indicators through available datasets and the implementation of the framework through analytical approaches for efficiency measurement.
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.