ArticleBJGP open2025
Adjusting primary-care funding by deprivation: a cross-sectional study of Lower layer Super Output Areas in England.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of primary care funding on health inequalities: an umbrella review.Primary health care research & development · 2025Pooled it
- Improving Primary Healthcare: Applying Grapevine (Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Deprivation scores and NHS practice payment trends in England 2018-2019 to 2023-2024:a multivariable analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Payment mechanisms to improve prevention spending in health care settings: A policy-focused evidence brief.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Counting general practitioners: a comparative repeat cross-sectional analysis of GPs in NHS general practice in England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Evaluating the impact of capitation funding top-up payments in primary care.BMC primary care · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious research has called for general practice funding to be adjusted by deprivation data. However, there is no evidence that this adjustment would better meet clinical need.
aimTo assess (1) how accurately the capitation formula (Carr-Hill), and total general practice funding predicts clinical need and (2) whether adjusting by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score improves accuracy. DESIGN &
settingA cross-sectional analysis of 32 844 Lower layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in England in 2021-2022. Sensitivity analysis used data from 2015-2019.
methodWeighted average Carr-Hill Index (CHI), total general practice funding, and five measures of clinical need were calculated for each LSOA. For both CHI and total funding, four sets of generalised linear models were calculated for each outcome measure: unadjusted; adjusted for age; adjusted for IMD; and adjusted for age and IMD. Adjusted
resultsIn unadjusted models, CHI was a better predictor than total funding of combined morbidity index (CMI) (
conclusionAdjusting capitation or total funding by IMD would increase funding efficiency, especially for long-term outcomes such as mortality. However, adjusting for IMD without age could have unwanted consequences.
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.