ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Does asthma pay-for-performance program really improve the quality of asthma care: a nationwide retrospective cohort analysis in Taiwan.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond Eosinophil Depletion: IL-5 as a Context-Dependent Regulator of Airway Immune Networks.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAsthma is a prevalent noncommunicable disease worldwide, imposing significant burdens and diminishing the quality of life for those affected. Pay-for-Performance (P4P) programs are reimbursement models that offer incentives to healthcare providers based on their performance metrics. While P4P initiatives have been implemented across various medical conditions, their specific impact on asthma care remains uncertain. This study aims to compare the characteristics and quality of asthma care between patients enrolled in the P4P program and those who are not. Additionally, we will examine trends in these characteristics and care quality over time.
methodsThis study utilized a multiple cross-sectional design to analyze asthma patients diagnosed in 2010 and 2019, drawing data from Taiwan's National Health Insurance claims database. We collected information on demographic characteristics, P4P program enrollment, medication usage, healthcare service utilization, and attributes of both patients and their primary treatment hospitals. To address the study objectives, we employed logistic regression models and applied 1:1 propensity score matching to mitigate selection bias.
resultsA total of 811,177 individuals diagnosed with asthma were identified, comprising 317,669 in 2010 and 493,508 in 2019. Our findings indicate that patients enrolled in the P4P program had higher prescription rates for inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and experienced lower rates of hospital admissions and emergency department visits for acute asthma exacerbations compared to non-enrolled patients. We also observed that demographic characteristics influenced P4P enrollment, with these impacts evolving over time. Furthermore, the effects of the P4P program varied across different levels of hospital accreditation.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that the P4P program positively influences the quality of asthma care. However, variations between P4P and non-P4P enrollers persist and have widened over time. Health authorities should address these disparities to ensure equitable care for all asthma patients. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Protocol #202203101RINC.
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.